F     V 


THE 


GREAT    SPEECHES.  AND     ORATIONS 


OF 


DANIEL   WEBSTER 

M 

WITH    AN    ESSAY 

ON 

DANIEL  WEBSTER  AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH    STYLE 


BY 


EDWIN    P.    WHIPPLE 


BOSTON 
LITTLE,     BROWN,     &     CO. 

1879 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1879,  b 

LITTLE,  BROWN,  &   Co., 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 
UNIVERSITY  PRESS  :  JOHN  WILSON  AND  SON. 


PREFACE. 


THE  object  of  the  present  volume  is  not  to  supersede  the 
standard  edition  of  Daniel  Webster's  Works,  in  six  octavo  vol 
umes,  edited  by  Edward  Everett,  and  originally  issued  in  the 
year  1851,  by  the  publishers  of  this  volume  of  Selections.  It 
is  rather  the  purpose  of  the  present  publication  to  call  atten 
tion  anew  to  the  genius  and  character  of  Daniel  Webster,  as 
a  lawyer,  statesman,  diplomatist,  patriot,  and  citizen,  and,  by 
republishing  some  of  his  prominent  orations  and  speeches  of 
universally  acknowledged  excellence,  to  revive  public  interest 
in  the  great  body  of  his  works.  In  the  task  of  selection,  it 
has  been  impossible  to  do  full  justice  to  his  powers ;  for 
among  the  speeches  omitted  in  this  collection  are  to  be  found 
passages  of  superlative  eloquence,  maxims  of  political  and 
moral  wisdom  which  might  be  taken  as  mottoes  for  elaborate 
treatises  on  the  philosophy  of  law  and  legislation,  and  impor 
tant  facts  and  principles  which  no  student  of  history  of  the 
United  States  can  overlook  without  betraying  an  ignorance 
of  the  great  forces  which  influenced  the  legislation  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress,  from  the  time  Mr.  Webster  first  entered 
public  life  to  the  day  of  his  death. 

It  is  to  be  supposed  that,  when  Mr.  Everett  consented  to 
edit  the  six  volumes  of  his  works,  Mr.  Webster  indicated  to 
him  the  orations,  speeches,  and  diplomatic  despatches  which 
he  really  thought  might  be  of  service  to  the  public,  and  that 


IV  PREFACE. 

he  intended  them  as  a  kind  of  legacy,  —  a  bequest  to  his  coun 
trymen. 

The  publishers  of  this  volume  believe  that  a  study  of  Mr. 
Webster's  mind,  heart,  and  character,  as  exhibited  in  the 
selections  contained  in  the  present  volume,  will  inevitably 
direct  all  sympathetic  readers  to  the  great  body  of  Mr.  Web 
ster's  works.  Among  the  eminent  men  who  have  influenced 
legislative  assemblies  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
during  the  past  hundred  and  twenty  years,  it  is  curious  that 
only  two  have  established  themselves  as  men  of  the  first 
class  in  English  and  American  literature.  These  two  men 
are  Edmund  Burke  and  Daniel  Webster ;  and  it  is  only  by 
the  complete  study  of  every  thing  which  they  authorized  to 
be  published  under  their  names,  that  we  can  adequately  com 
prehend  either  their  position  among  the  political  forces  of 
their  time,  or  their  rank  among  the  great  masters  of  English 
eloquence  and  style. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

DANIEL  WEBSTER  AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE  xi 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE 1 

Argument  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  at  Wash 
ington,  on  the  10th  of  March,  1818. 

FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 25 

A  Discourse  delivered  at  Plymouth,  on  the  22d  of  December,  1820. 

DEFENCE  OF  JUDGE  JAMES  PRESCOTT 55 

The  closing  Appeal  to  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts,  in  Mr.  Webster's 
"Argument  on  the  Impeachment  of  James  Prescott,"  April  24th, 
1821. 

THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE 57 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  19th  of  January,  1824. 

THE  TARIFF 77 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  1st  and  2d  of  April,  1824. 

THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN Ill 

An  Argument  made  in  the  Case  of  Gibbons  and  Ogden,  in  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  February  Term,  1824. 

THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT 123 

An  Address  delivered  at  the  Laying  of  the  Corner-Stone  of  the 
Bunker  Hill  Monument  at  Charlestown,  Massachusetts,  on  the 
17th  of  June,  1825. 

THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT      .     .     136 
An  Address  delivered  on  Bunker  Hill,  on  the   17th  of  June,  1843, 
on  Occasion  of  the  Completion  of  the  Monument. 


vi  CONTENTS. 

OUR  RELATIONS  TO  THE  SOUTH  AMERICAN  REPUBLICS  .     .    152 

Extracts  from  the  Speech  on  "  The  Panama  Mission,"  delivered  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  on  the  14th  of 
April,  1826. 

ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON  .     .     .     .    .    , 156 

A  Discourse  in  Commemoration  of  the  Lives  and  Services  of  John 
Adams  and  Thomas  Jefferson,  delivered  in  ifaneuil  Hall,  Boston, 
on  the  2d  of  August,  1826. 

THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS 179 

An  Argument  made  in  the  Case  of  Ogden  and  Saunders,  in  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  January  Term,  1827. 

THE  MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE 189 

An  Argument  on  the  Trial  of  John  Francis  Knapp,  for  the  Murder 
of  Joseph  White,  of  Salem,  in  Essex  County,  Massachusetts,  on  the 
Night  of  the  6th  of  April,  1830. 

THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE .    227 

Second  Speech  on  "  Foot's  Resolution,"  delivered  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  on  the  26th  and  27th  of  January,  1830. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT  BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN 

STATES 273 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  16th  of 
February,  1833,  in  Reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech  on  the  Bill 
"  Further  to  Provide  for  the  Collection  of  Duties  on  Imports." 

PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW  YORK 307 

A  Speech  delivered  at  a  Public  Dinner  given  by  a  large  Number  of 
Citizens  of  New  York,  in  Honor  of  Mr.  Webster,  on  March  10th, 
1831. 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES   BANK 

BILL 320 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  llth  of 
July,  1832,  on  the  President's  Veto  of  the  Bank  Bill. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  WASHINGTON 339 

A  Speech  delivered  at  a  Public  Dinner  in  the  City  of  Washington, 
on  the  22d  of  February,  1832,  the  Centennial  Anniversary  of 
Washington's  Birthday. 

EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE  AND  REMOVALS  FROM  OFFICE   .     .    347 

From  a  Speech  delivered  at  the  National  Republican  Convention, 
held  at  Worcester  (Mass.),  on  the  12th  of  October,  1832. 


CONTENTS.  Vii 

EXECUTIVE  USURPATION  .     .     .    .    .    .    .    V    .    ....     .    353*- 

From  the  same  Speech  at  Worcester. 

THE  NATUEAL  HATRED  OF  THE  POOR  TO  THE  RICH  .    .     .    359^ 

From  a  Speech  in   the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  January  31st, 

1834,  on  "The  Removal  of  the  Deposits." 

A  REDEEMABLE  PAPER  CURRENCY 362 

From  a  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
22d  of  February,  1834. 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST 367 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  7th  of 
May,  1834,  on  the  subject  of  the  President's  Protest  against  the 
Resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  28th  of  March. 

THE  APPOINTING  AND  REMOVING  POWER 394 

Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  1 6th  of  February, 

1835,  on  the  Passage  of  the  Bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  Repeal  the 
First  and  Second  Sections  of  the  Act  to  limit  the  Term  of  Service 
of  certain  Officers  therein  named." 

ON  THE   LOSS   OF  THE   FORTIFICATION   BlLL  IN    1835    .      .      .      407 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  14th 
of  January,  1836,  on  Mr.  Benton's  Resolutions  for  Appropriating 
the  Surplus  Revenue  to  National  Defence. 

RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK 422 

A  Speech  delivered  at  Niblo's  Saloon,  in  New  York,  on  the  15th  of 
March,  1837. 

SLAVERY  IN  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA 445  „ 

Remarks  made  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  10th  of 
January,  1838,  upon  a  Resolution  moved  by  Mr.  Clay  as  a  Sub 
stitute  for  the  Resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  Subject  of 
Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

THE  CREDIT   SYSTEM   AND  THE  LABOR   OF   THE   UNITED 

STATES 449 

From  the  Second  Speech  on  the  Sub-Treasury,  delivered  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  12th  of  March,  1838. 


viii  CONTENTS. 

REMARKS  ON  THE  POLITICAL  COURSE  OF  MR.  CALHOUN,  IN 

1838 453 

From  the  same  Speech. 

fc  t 

REPLY  TO  MB.  CALHOUN 458 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  22d  of 
March,  1838,  in  Answer  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  • 

A  UNIFORM  SYSTEM  OF  BANKRUPTCY 471 

From  a  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
18th  of  May,  1840,  on  the  proposed  Amendment  to  the  Bill  estab 
lishing  a  Uniform  System  of  Bankruptcy. 

"  THE  LOG  CABIN  CANDIDATE  " 476 

From  a  Speech  delivered  at  the  great  Mass  Meeting  at  Saratoga,  New 
York,  on  the  12th  of  August,  1840. 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  LADIES  OF  RICHMOND 478 

Remarks  at  a  Public  Reception  by  the  Ladies  of  Richmond,  Virginia, 
on  the  5th  of  October,  1840. 

RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON 481 

A  Speech  made  in  Faneuil  Hall,  on  the  30th  of  September,  1842,  at 
a  Public  Reception  given  to  Mr.  Webster,  on  his  Return  to  Boston, 
after  the  Negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington. 

THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH 496 

A  Speech  delivered  on  the  22d  of  December,  1843,  at  the  Public 
Dinner  of  the  New  England  Society  of  New  York,  in  Commemo 
ration  of  the  Landing  of  the  Pilgrims. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY  AND  THE  RELIGIOUS  INSTRUC 
TION  OF  THE  YOUNG 505 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  on  the 
20th  of  February,  1844,  in  the  Girard  Will  Case. 

MR.  JUSTICE  STORY 532 

THE  RHODE  ISLAND  GOVERNMENT 535 

An  Argument  made  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  27th  of  January,  1848,  in  the  Dorr  Rebellion  Cases. 

OBJECTS  OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR 551 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  23d  of 
March,  1848,  on  the  Bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives  for 
raising  a  Loan  of  Sixteen  Millions  of  Dollars. 


CONTENTS.  ix 

EXCLUSION  OF  SLAVERY  FROM  THE  TERRITORIES 569 

Remarks  made  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  12th  of 
August,  1848. 

SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD 575 

Delivered  at  a  Meeting  of  the  Citizens  of  Marshfield,  Mass.,  on  the 
1st  of  September,  1848. 

JEREMIAH  MASON 589 

KOSSUTH 598 

From  a  Speech  delivered  in  Boston,  on  the  7th  of  November,  1849, 
at  a  Festival  of  the  Natives  of  New  Hampshire  established  in 
Massachusetts. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION 600   .j(( 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  7th  of 
March,  1850. 

RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO  ...  - 626 

A  Speech  delivered  before  a  large  Assembly  of  the  Citizens  of  Buffalo 
and  the  County  of  Erie,  at  a  Public  Reception,  on  the  22d  of  May, 
1851. 

THE  ADDITION  TO  THE  CAPITOL 639 

An  Address  delivered  at  the  Laying  of  the  Corner-Stone  of  the  Addi 
tion  to  the  Capitol,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1851. 


APPENDIX. 

IMPRESSMENT 655 

THE  RIGHT  OF  SEARCH 660 

LETTERS  TO  GENERAL  CASS  ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASH 
INGTON     666 

*THE  HULSEMANN  LETTER  678 


DANIEL   WEBSTER 

AS    A    MASTER    OF    ENGLISH    STYLE. 


TT'ROM  my  own  experience  and  observation  I  should  say  that  every 
-*-  boy,  who  is  ready  enough  in  spelling,  grammar,  geography,  and 
arithmetic,  is  appalled  when  he  is  commanded  to  write  what  is  termed 
"  a  composition."  When  he  enters  college  the  same  fear  follows  him  ; 
and  the  Professor  of  Rhetoric  is  a  more  terrible  personage  to  his  imag 
ination  than  the  Professors  of  Greek,  Latin,  Mathematics,  and  Moral 
and  Intellectual  Philosophy.  Both  boys  at  school  and  young  men 
in  college  show  no  lack  of  power  in  speaking  their  native  language 
with  a  vehemence  and  fluency  which  almost  stuns  the  ears  of  their 
seniors.  Why,  then,  should  they  find  such  difficulty  in  writing  it? 
When  you /listen  to  the  animated  talk  of  a  bright  school-boy  or  college 
student,  full  of  a  subject  which  really  interests  him,  you  say  at  once 
that  such  command  of  racy  and  idiomatic  English  words  must  of 
course  be  exhibited  in  his  "compositions''  or  his  "themes";  but 
when  the  latter  are  examined,  they  are  commonly  found  to  be  feeble 
and  lifeless,  with  hardly  a  thought  or  a  word  which  bears  any  stamp  of 
freshness  or  originality,  and  which  are  so  inferior  to  his  ordinary  con 
versation,  that  we  can  hardly  believe  they  came  from  the  same  mind. 
The  first  quality  which  strikes  an  examiner  of  these  exercises  in 
English  composition  is  their  falseness.  No  boy  or  youth  writes  what 
he  personally  thinks  and  feels,  but  writes  what  a  good  boy  or  youth  is 
expected  to  think  or  feel.  This  hypocrisy  vitiates  his  writing  from 
first  to  last,  and  is  not  absent  in  his  "  Class  Oration,"  or  in  his 
"  Speech  at  Commencement."  I  have  a  vivid  memory  of  the  first 
time  the  boys  of  my  class,  in  a  public  school,  were  called  upon  to 
write  "  composition."  The  themes  selected  were  the  prominent  moral 
virtues  or  vices.  How  we  poor  innocent  urchins  were  tormented  by 
the  task  imposed  upon  us  !  How  we  put  more  ink  on  our  hands  and 
faces  than  we  shed  upon  the  white  paper  on  our  desks  !  Our  conclu 
sions  generally  agreed  with  those  announced  by  the  greatest  moralists 


Xll  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

of  the  world.  Socrates  and  Plato,  Cicero  and  Seneca,  Ctidworth  and 
Butler,  could  not  have  been  more  austerely  moral  than  were  we  little 
rogues,  as  we  relieved  the  immense  exertion  involved  in  completing  a 
single  short  baby-like  sentence^  by  shying  at  one  companion  a  rule, 
or  hurling  at  another  a  paper  pellet  intended  to  light  plump  on  his 
forehead  or  nose.  Our  custom  was  to  begin  every  composition  with 
the  proposition  that  such  or  such  a  virtue  "  Was  one  of  the  greatest 
blessings  we  enjoy"  ;  and  this  triumph  of -accurate  statement  was  not 
discovered  by  our  teacher  to  be  purely  mechanical,  until  one  juvenile 
thinker,  having  avarice  to  deal  with,  declared  it  to  be  "  one  of  the 
greatest  evils  we  enjoy."  The  whole  thing  was  such  a  piece  of 
monstrous  hypocrisy,  that  I  once  timidly  suggested  to  the  school 
master  that  it  would  be  well  to  allow  me  to  select  my  own  subject. 
The  request  was  granted ;  and,  as  narrative  is  the  natural  form  of  com 
position  which  a  boy  adopts  when  he  has  his  own  way,  I  filled,  in  less 
than  half  the  time  heretofore  consumed  in  writing  a  quarter  of  a  page, 
four  pages  of  letter-paper  with  an  account  of  my  being  in  a  ship  taken 
by  a  pirate ;  of  the  heroic  defiance  I  launched  at  the  pirate  captain  ; 
and  the  sagacity  I  evinced  in  escaping  the  fate  of  my  fellow-passen 
gers,  in  not  being  ordered  to  "  walk  the  plank."  The  story,  though 
trashy  enough,  was  so  much  better  than  any  of  the  moral  essays  of 
the  other  pupils,  that  the  teacher  commanded  me  to  read  it  before  the 
whole  school,  as  an  evidence  of  the  rapid  strides  I  had  made  in  the  art 
of  "  composition." 

This  falseness  of  thought  and  feeling  is  but  too  apt  to  characterize 
the  writing  of  the  student,  after  he  has  passed  from  the  common 
school  to  the  academy  or  the  college.  The  term  "  Sophomorical  "  is 
used  to  describe  speeches  which  are  full  of  emotion  which  the  speaker 
does  not  feel,  full  of  words  in  four  or  five  syllables  that  mean  nothing, 
and,  in  respect  to  imagery  and  illustrations,  blazing  with  the  cheap 
jewelry  of  rhetoric,  —  Avith  those  rubies  and  diamonds  that  can  be  pur 
chased  for  a  few  pennies  an  ounce.  The  danger  is  that  this  u  Soph 
omorical  "  style  may  continue  to  afflict  the  student  after  he  has  be 
come  a  clergyman,  a  lawyer,  or  a  legislator. 

Practical  men  who  may  not  be  "  college  educated  "  still  have  the 
great  virtue  of  using  the  few  words  they  employ  as  identical  with  facts. 
When  they  meet  a  man  who  has  half  the  dictionary  at  his  disposal, 
and  yet  gives  no  evidence  of  apprehending  the  real  import  and  mean 
ing  of  one  word  among  the  many  thousands  he  glibly  pours  forth, 
they  naturally  distrust  him,  as  a  person  who  does  not  know  the  vital 
connection  of  all  good  words  with  the  real  things  they  represent. 


AS   A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  Xlil 

Indeed,  the  best  rule  that  a  Professor  of  Rhetoric  could  adopt  would 
be  to  insist  that  no  student  under  his  care  should  use  an  unusual 
word  until  he  had  earned  the  right  to  use  it  by  making  it  the  verbal 
sign  of  some  new  advance  in  his  thinking,  in  his  acquirements,  or  in 
his  feelings.  Shakspeare,  the  greatest  of  English  writers,  and  per 
haps  the  greatest  of  all  writers,  required  fifteen  thousand  words  to 
embody  all  that  his  vast  exceptional  intelligence  acquired,  thought, 
imagined,  and  discovered ;  and  he  had  earned  the  right  to  use  every 
one  of  them.  Milton  found  that  eight  thousand  words  could  fairly 
and  fully  represent  all  the  power,  grandeur,  and  creativeness  of  his 
almost  seraphic  soul,  when  he  attempted  to  express  his  whole  nature 
in  a  literary  form.  All  the  words  used  by  Shakspeare  and  Milton 
are  alive  ;  "  cut  them  and  they  will  bleed."  But  it  is  ridiculous  for  a 
college  student  to  claim  that  he  has  the  mighty  resources  of  the  Eng 
lish  language  at  his  supreme  disposal,  when  he  has  not  verified,  by  his 
own  thought,  knowledge,  and  experience,  one  in  a  hundred  of  the 
words  he  presumptuously  employs. 

Now  Daniel  Webster  passed  safely  through  all  the  stages  of  the 
"  Sophomoric  "  disease  of  the  mind,  as  he  passed  safely  through  the 
measles,  the  chicken-pox,  and  other  eruptive  maladies  incident  to 
childhood  and  youth.  The  process,  however,  by  which  he  purified  his 
style  from  this  taint,  and  made  his  diction  at  last  as  robust  and  as 
manly,  as  simple  and  as  majestic,  as  the  nature  it  expressed,  will 
reward  a  little  study. 

/      The  mature  style  of  Webster  is  perfect  of  its  kind,  being  in  words 
•  tlie  eTpreSlT"Tmage  of  his  mind  and  character,  —  plain,  terse,  clear, 
forcible ;  and  rising  from  the  level  of  lucid  statement  and  argument 
into  passages  of  superlative  eloquence  only  when  his  whole  nature  is 
j    stirred   by   some   grand   sentiment   oP  freedom,    patriotism,   justice, 
,    humanity,  or  religion,  which  absolutely  lifts  him,  ^y  its  own  inherent 
1    force  and  inspiration,  to  a  region  above  that  in  which  his  mind  habit- 
\  ually  lives  and  moves.     At  the  same  time  it  will  be  observed  that 
\,  these  thrilling  passages,  which  the  boys  of  two  generations  have  ever 
been  delighted  to  declaim  in  their  shrillest  tones,  are  strictly  illustra 
tive  of  the  main  purpose  of  the  speech  in  which  they  appear.     They 
are  not  mere  purple  patches  of  rhetoric,  loosely  stitched  on  the  home 
spun  gray  of  the  reasoning,  but  they_seem  to  be  inwoven  with  jt  and 
to  be  a  vital  part  of  it.     Indeed  we  can  hardly  decide,  in   reading 
these  magnificent  bursts  of  eloquence  in  connection  with  what  precedes 
and  follows  them,  whether  the  effect  is  due  to  the  logic  of  the  orator 
becoming  suddenly   morally    impassioned,    or   to   his   moral   passion 


XIV  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

becoming  suddenly  logical.  What  gave  Webster  his  immense  influ 
ence  over  the  opinions  of  the  people  of  New  England  was,  (firs?,  his 
power  of  so  "putting  things"  that  everybody  could  ^understand  his 
statements;  Cgecp5HTy7  his  power  of  so  framing  his  arguments  that 
all  the  steps,  from  one  point  to  another,  in  a  logical  series,  could  be 
clearly  apprehended  by  every  intelligent  farmer  or  mechanicwho 
Ead  a  thoughtful  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the^  country ;  and  Sjjrdly^ 
his  power  of  inflaming  the_sentiment  of  patriotism  in  all  honest  and 
well-intentioned  men  by  overwhelming  appeals  to  that  sentiment,  so 
that,  after  convincing  their  understandings7~he  clinchecTllie  matter 
by  sweeping  away  their  wills. 

Perhaps  to  these  sources  of  influence  may  be  added  another  which 
many  eminent  statesmen  have  lacked.  With  all  his  great  superiority 
to  average  men  in  force  and  breadth  of  mind,  he  had  a  genuine  respect 
for  the  intellect,  as  well  as  for  the  manhood,  o^aj7erage_jnBn-.  He 
disdaTne3rThe~ignoble  office  of  misleading  the  voters  he  aimed  to 
instruct ;  and  the  farmers  and  mechanics  who  read  his  speeches  felt 
ennobled  when  they  found  that  the  greatest  statesman  of  the  country 
frankly  addressed  them,  as  man  to  man,  without  pluming  himself  on  his 
exceptional  talents  and  accomplishments.  Up  to  the  crisis  of  1850,  he 
succeeded  in  domesticating  himself  at  most  of  the  pious,  moral,  and  in 
telligent  firesides  of  New  England.  Through  his  speeches  he  seemed  to 
be  almost  bodily  present  wherever  the  family,  gathered  in  the  evening 
around  the  blazing  hearth,  discussed  the  questions  of  the  day.  It  was 
not  the  great  Mr.  Webster,  "  the  godlike  Daniel,"  who  had  a  seat  by 
the  fire.  It  was  a  person  whoJiajJ^UjadJiJ&m,  and  argued  with  them,  as 
though  he  was  "  one  of  the  folks,"  —  a  neighbor  dropping  in  to  make 
an  evening  call ;  there  was  not  the  slightest  trace  of  assumption  in  his 
manner ;  but  suddenly,  after  the  discussion  had  become  a  little  tire 
some,  certain  fiery  words  would  leap  from  his  lips  and  make  the  whole 
household  spring  to  their  feet,  ready  to  sacrifice  life  and  property  for 
"  the  Constitution  and  the  Union."  That  Webster  was  thus  a  kind 
of  invisible  presence  in  thousands  of  homes  where  his  face  was  never 
seen,  shows  that  his  rhetoric  had  caught  an  element  of  power  from  his 
early  recollections  of  the  independent,  hard-headed  farmers  whom  he 
met  when  a  boy  in  his  father's  house.  The  bodies  of  these  men  had 
become  tough  and  strong  in  their  constant  struggle  to  force  scanty 
harvests  from  an  unfruitful  soil,  which  only  persistent  toil  could  com 
pel  to  yield  any  thing ;  and  their  brains,  though  forcible  and  clear, 
were  still  not  stored  with  the  important  facts  and  principles  which  it 
was  his  delight  to  state  and  expound.  In  truth,  he  ran  a  race  with 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  XV 

the  demagogues  of  his  time  in  an  attempt  to  capture  such  men  as 
these,  thinking  them  the  very  backbone  of  the  country.  Whether  he 
succeeded  or  failed,  it  would  be  vain  to  hunt  through  his  works  to  find 
a  single  epithet  in  which  he  mentioned  them  with  contempt.  He  was 
as  incapable  of  insulting  one  member  of  this  landed  democracy,  — 
sterile  as  most  of  their  acres  were,  —  as  of  insulting  the  memory  of 
his  father,  who  belonged  to  this  class. 

The  late  Mr.  Peter  Harvey  used  to  tell  with  much  zest  a  story 
illustrating  the  hold  which  these  early  associations  retained  on  Web 
ster's  mind  throughout  his  life.  Some  months  after  his  removal  from 
Portsmouth  to  Boston,  a  servant  knocked  at  his  chamber  door  late  in 
an  April  afternoon  in  the  year  1817,  with  the  announcement  that 
three  men  were  in  the  drawing-room  who  insisted  on  seeing  him.  Web 
ster  was  overwhelmed  with  fatigue,  the  result  of  his  Congressional 
labors  and  his  attendance  on  courts  of  law ;  and  he  had  determined, 
after  a  night's  sleep,  to  steal  a  vacation  in  order  to  recruit  his  ener 
gies  by  a  fortnight's  fishing  and  hunting.  He  suspected  that  the 
persons  below  were  expectant  clients  ;  and  he  resolved,  in  descending 
the  stairs,  not  to  accept  their  offer.  He  found  in  the  parlor  three 
plain,  country-bred,  honest-looking  men,  who  were  believers  in  the 
innocence  of  Levi  and  Laban  Kenniston,  accused  of  robbing  a  certain 
Major  Goodridge  on  the  highway,  and  whose  trial  would  take  place  at 
Ipswich  the  next  day.  They  could  find,  they  said,  no  member  of  the 
Essex  bar  who  would  undertake  the  defence  of  the  Kennistons,  and 
they  had  come  to  Boston  to  engage  the  services  of  Mr.  Webster. 
Would  he  go  down  to  Ipswich  and  defend  the  accused  ?  Mr.  Webster 
stated  that  he  could  not  and  would  not  go.  He  had  made  arrange 
ments  for  an  excursion  to  the  sea-side  ;  the  state  of  his  health  abso 
lutely  demanded  a  short  withdrawal  from  all  business  cares ;  and  that 
no  fee  could  tempt  him  to  abandon  his  purpose.  "  Well,"  was  the 
reply  of  one  of  the  delegation,  "  it  isn't  the  fee  that  we  think  of  at  all, 
though  we  are  willing  to  pay  what  you  may  charge  ;  but  it's  justice. 
Here  are  two  New  Hampshire  men  who  are  believed  in  Exeter,  and 
Newbury,  and  Newburyport,  and  Salem  to  be  rascals ;  but  we  in  New 
market  believe,  in  spite  of  all  evidence  against  them,  that  they  are  the 
victims  of  some  conspiracy.  We  think  you  are  the  man  to  unravel 
it,  though  it  seems  a  good  deal  tangled  even  to  us.  Still  we  suppose 
that  men  whom  we  know  to  have  been  honest  all  their  lives  can't 
have  become  such  desperate  rogues  all  of  a  sudden."  "  But  I  cannot 
take  the  case,"  persisted  Mr.  Webster ;  "  I  am  worn  to  death  with 
over-work;  I  have  not  had  any  real  sleep  for  forty-eight  hours. 


Xvi  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

Besides,  I  know  nothing  of  the  case."  "  It's  hard,  I  can  see,"  con 
tinued  the  leader  of  the  delegation  ;  "  but  you're  a  New  Hampshire 
man,  and  the  neighbors  thought  that  you  would  not  allow  two  innocent 
New  Hampshire  men,  however  humble  they  may  be  in  their  circum 
stances,  to  suffer  for  lack  of  your  skill  in  exposing  the  wiles  of  this 
scoundrel  Goodridge.  The  neighbors  all  desire  you  to  take  the  case." 
That  phrase  "  the  neighbors  "  settled  the  question.  No  resident  of  a 
city  knows  what  the  phrase  means.  But  Webster  knew  it  in  all  the 
intense  significance  of  its  meaning.  His  imagination  flew  back  to  the 
scattered  homesteads  of  a  New  England  village,  where  mutual  sympa 
thy  and  assistance  are  the  necessities,  as  they  are  the  commonplaces, 
of  village  life.  The  phrase  remotely  meant  to  him  the  combination 
of  neighbors  to  resist  an  assault  of  Indian  savages,  or  to  send  volun 
teers  to  the  war  which  wrought  the  independence  of  the  nation.  It 
specially  meant  to  him  the  help  of  neighbor  to  neighbor,  in  times  of 
sickness,  distress,  sorrow,  and  calamity.  In  his  childhood  and  boy 
hood  the  Christian  question,  "  Who  is  my  neighbor?"  was  instantly 
solved  the  moment  a  matron  in  good  health  heard  that  the  wife  of 
Farmer  A,  or  Farmer  B,  was  stricken  down  by  fever,  and  needed  a 
friendly  nurse  to  sit  by  her  bedside  all  night,  though  she  had  herself 
been  toiling  hard  all  day.  Every  thing  philanthropists  mean  when  they 
talk  of  brotherhood  and  sisterhood  among  men  and  women  was  con 
densed  in  that  homely  phrase,  u  the  neighbors."  "  Oh  !  "  said  Web 
ster,  ruefully,  "  if  the  neighbors  think  I  may  be  of  service,  of  course 
I  must  go";  — and,  with  his  three  companions,  he  was  soon  seated  in 
the  stage  for  Ipswich,  where  he  arrived  at  about  midnight.  The  court 
met  the  next  morning ;  and  his  management  of  the  case  is  still  con 
sidered  one  of  his  masterpieces  of  legal  acumen  and  eloquence.  His 
cross-examination  of  Goodridge  rivalled,  in  mental  torture,  every  thing 
martyrologists  tell  us  of  the  physical  agony  endured  by  the  victim  of 
the  inquisitor,  when  roasted  before  slow  fires  or  stretched  upon  the  rack. 
Still  it  seemed  impossible  to  assign  any  motive  for  the  self-robbery 
and  the  self-maiming  of  Goodridge,  which  any  judge  or  jury  would 
accept  as  reasonable.  The  real  motive  has  never  been  discovered. 
Webster  argued  that  the  motive  might  have  originated  in  a  desire 
to  escape  from  the  payment  of  his  debts,  or  in  a  whimsical  ambition 
to  have  his  name  sounded  all  over  Maine  and  Massachusetts  as  the 
heroic  tradesman  who  had  parted  with  his  money  only  when  over 
powered  by  superior  force.  It  is  impossible  to  say  what  motives  may 
impel  men  who  are  half-crazed  by  vanity,  or  half-demonized  by  malice. 
Coleridge  describes  lago's  hatred  of  Othello  as  the  hatred  which  a 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xvii 

base  nature  instinctively  feels  for  a  noble  one,  and  his  assignment  of 
motives  for  his  acts  as  the  mere  "motive-hunting  of  a  motiveless 
malignity." 

Whatever  may  have  been  Goodridge's  motive  in  his  attempt  to  ruin 
the  innocent  men  he  falsely  accused,  it  is  certain  that  Webster  saved 
these  men  from  the  unjust  punishment  of  an  imputed  crime.  Only 
the  skeleton  of  his  argument  before  the  jury  has  been  preserved  ;  but 
what  we  have  of  it  evidently  passed  under  his  revision.  He  knew 
that  the  plot  of  Goodridge  had  been  so  cunningly  contrived,  that  every 
man  of  the  twelve  before  him,  whose  verdict  was  to  determine  the 
fate  of  his  clients,  was  inwardly  persuaded  of  their  guilt.  Some  small 
marked  portions  of  the  money  which  Goodridge  swore  he  had  on  his 
person  on  the  night  of  the  pretended  robbery  were  found  in  their  house. 
Circumstantial  evidence  brought  their  guilt  with  a  seemingly  irre 
sistible  force  literally  "  home  "  to  them.  It  was  the  conviction  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Essex  bar  that  no  respectable  lawyer  could  appear  in 
their  defence  without  becoming,  in  some  degree,  their  accomplice. 
But  Webster,  after  damaging  the  character  of  the  prosecutor  by  his 
stern  cross-examination,  addressed  the  jury,  not  as  an  advocate  bear 
ing  down  upon  them  with  his  arguments  and  appeals,  but  rather  as  a 
thirteenth  juryman,  who  had  cosily  introduced  himself  into  their  com 
pany,  and  was  arguing  the  case  with  them  after  they  had  retired  for 
consultation  among  themselves.  The  simplicity  of  the  language  em 
ployed  is  not  more  notable  than  the  power  evinced  in  seizing  the 
main  points  on  which  the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  turned.  At 
every  quiet  but  deadly  stab  aimed  at  the  theory  of  the  prosecution,  he 
is  careful  to  remark,  that  "  it  is  for  the  jury  to  say  under  their  oaths" 
whether  such  inconsistencies  or  improbabilities  should  have  any  effect 
on  their  minds.  Every  strong  argument  closes  with  the  ever-recurring 
phrase,  "It  is  for  the  jury  to  say";  and,  at  the  end,  the  jury,  thor 
oughly  convinced,  said,  "  Not  guilty."  The  Kennistons  were  vindi 
cated  ;  and  the  public,  which  had  been  almost  unanimous  in  declaring 
them  fit  tenants  for  the  State  prison,  soon  blamed  the  infatuation 
which  had  made  them  the  accomplices  of  a  villain  in  hunting  down 
two  unoffending  citizens,  and  of  denouncing  every  lawyer  who  should 
undertake  their  defence  as  a  legal  rogue. 

The  detected  scoundrel  fled  from  the  place  where  his  rascality  had 
been  exposed,  to  seek  some  other  locality,  where  the  mingled  jeers  and 
curses  of  his  dupes  would  be  unheard.  Some  twenty  years  after  the 
trial,  Mr.  Webster,  while  travelling  in  Western  New  York,  stopped  at 
an  obscure  village  tavern  to  get  a  glass  of  water.  The  hand  of  the 

b 


xviii  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

man  behind  the  bar,  who  gave  it  to  him,  trembled  violently ;  and 
Webster,  wondering  at  the  cause,  looked  the  fellow  steadily  in  the  eye. 
He  recognized  Goodridge,  and  understood  at  once  that  Goodridge  had 
just  before  recognized  him.  Not  a  word  passed  between  the  felon  and 
the  intrepid  advocate  who  had  stripped  his  villany  of  all  its  plausible 
disguises ;  but  what  immense  meaning  must  there  have  been  in  the 
swift  interchange  of  feeling  as  their  eyes  metj  Mr.  Webster  entered 
his  carriage  and  proceeded  on  his  journey  ;  but  Goodridge,  —  who  has 
since  ever  heard  of  him? 

This  story  is  a  slight  digression,  but  it  illustrates  that  hold  on 
reality,  that  truth  to  fact,  which  was  one  of  the  sources  of  the  force 
and  simplicity  of  Mr.  Webster's  mature  style.  He,  however,  only 
obtained  these  good  qualities  of  rhetoric  by  long  struggles  with  con 
stant  temptations,  in  his  early  life,  to  use  resounding  expressions  and 
flaring  images  Avhich  he  had  not  earned  the  right  to  use.  His  Fourth 
of  July  oration  at  Hanover,  when  he  was  only  eighteen,  and  his  college 
addresses,  must  have  been  very  bad  in  their  diction  if  we  can  judge  of 
them  by  the  style  of  his  private  correspondence  at  the  time.  The 
verses  he  incorporates  in  his  letters  are  deformed  by  all  the  faults  of 
false  thinking  and  borrowed  expression  which  characterized  contem 
porary  American  imitators  of  English  imitators  of  Pope  and  Gray. 
Think  of  the  future  orator,  lawyer,  and  senator  writing,  even  at  the 
age  of  twenty,  such  balderdash  as  this  ! 

"  And  Heaven  grant  me,  whatever  luck  betide, 
Be  fame  or  fortune  given  or  denied, 
Some  cordial  friend  to  meet  my  warm  desire, 
Honest  as  John  and  good  as  Nehemiah." 

In  reading  such  couplets  we  are  reminded  of  the  noted  local  poet  of 
New  Hampshire  (or  was  it  Maine  ?)  who  wrote  "  The  Shepherd's 
Songs,"  and  some  of  whose  rustic  lines  still  linger  in  the  memory  to 
be  laughed  at,  such,  for  instance,  as  these :  — 

"  This  child  who  perished  in  the  fire,  — 
His  father's  name  was  Nehemiah." 

Or  these :  — 

"  Napoleon,  that  great  extfe, 
Who  scoured  all  Europe  like  a  file." 

And  Webster's  prose  was  then  almost  as  bad  as  his  verse,  though  it 
was  modelled  on  what  was  considered  fine  writing  at  the  opening  of 
the  present  century.  He  writes  to  his  dearest  student  friends  in  a 
style  which  is  profoundly  insincere,  though  the  thoughts  are  often 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xix 

good,  and  the  fact  of  his  love  for  his  friends  cannot  be  doubted.  He 
had  committed  to  memory  Fisher  Ames's  noble  speech  on  the  British 
Treaty,  and  had  probably  read  some  of  Burke's  great  pamphlets  on  the 
French  Revolution.  The  stripling  statesman  aimed  to  talk  in  their 
high  tone  and  in  their  richly  ornamented  language,  before  he  had 
earned  the  right  even  to  mimic  their  style  of  expression.  There  is  a 
certain  swell  in  some  of  his  long  sentences,  and  a  kind  of  good  sense 
in  some  of  his  short  ones,  which  suggest  that  the  writer  is  a  youth 
endowed  with  elevation  as  well  as  strength  of  nature,  and  is  only 
making  a  fool  of  himself  because  he  thinks  he  must  make  a  fool  of 
himself  in  order  that  he  may  impress  his  correspondents  with  the  idea 
that  he  is  a  master  of  the  horrible  jargon  which  all  bright  young 
fellows  at  that  time  innocently  supposed  to  constitute  eloquence. 
Thus,  in  February,  1800,  he  writes  thus  to  his  friend  Bingham  :  -*•'  Ijfc-  v 
my  melancholy  moments  I  presage  the  most  dire  calamities.  I  \ 
already  see  in  my  imagination  the  time  when  the  banner  of  civil  war  \ 
shall  be  unfurled ;  when  Discord's  hydra  form  shall  set  up  her  hideous, 
yell,  and  from  her  hundred  mouths  shall  howl  destruction  through  our 
empire ;  and  when  American  blood  shall  be  made  to  flow  in  rivers  by 
American  swords!  But  propitious  Heaven  prevent  such  dreadful 
calamities  !  Internally  secure,  we  have  nothing  to  fear.  Let  Europe 
pour  her  embattled  millions  around  us,  let  her  thronged  cohorts  cover 
our  shores,  from  St.  Lawrence  to  St.  Marie's,  yet  United  Columbia 
shall  stand  unmoved ;  the  rnanes^  of  her  deceased  Washington  shall 
guard  the  liberties  of  his  country,  and  direct  the  sword  of  freedom  in 
the  day  of  battle."  And  think  of  this,  not  in  a  Fourth  of  July  ora 
tion,  but  in  a  private  letter  to  an  intimate  acquaintance  ! /ihe  bones 
of  Daniel  Webster  might  be  supposed  to  have  moved  in  their  coffin  at 
the  thought  that  this  miserable  trash  —  so  regretted  and  so  amply 
atoned  for  —  should  have  ever  seen  the  light;  but  it  is  from  such 
youthful  follies  that  we  measure  the  vigor  of  the  man  who  outgrows 
them. 

It  was  fortunate  that  Webster,  after  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar, 
came  into  constant  collision,  in  the  courts  of  New  Hampshire,  with  one 
of  the  greatest  masters  of  the  common  law  that  the  country  has  ever 
produced,  Jeremiah  Mason.  It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Mason  educated 
Webster  inTo  a""lawyerl)y"*opposing  him.  He  did  more  than  this ;  he 
cured  Webster  of  all  the  florid  foolery  of  his  early  rhetorical  style. 
Of  all  men  that  ever  appeared  before  a  jury,  Mason  was  the  most 
pitiless  realist,  the  most  terrible  enemy  of  what  is  —  in  a  slang  term 
as  vile  almost  as  itself  —  called  "  Hifalutin  " ;  and  woe  to  the  opposing 


XX  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

lawyer  who  indulged  in  it !  He  relentlessly  pricked  all  rhetorical 
bubbles,  reducing  them  at  once  to  the  small  amount  of  ignominious 
suds,  which  the  orator's  breath  had  converted  into  colored  globes, 
having  some  appearance  of  stability  as  well  as  splendor.  Six  feet  and 
seven  inches  high,  and  corpulent  in  proportion,  this  inexorable  repre 
sentative  of  good  sense  and  sound  law  stood,  while  he  was  arguing  a 
case,  "  quite  near  to  the  jury,"  says  Webster,* —  "  so  near  that  he  might 
have  laid  his  finger  on  the  foreman's  nose  ;  and  then  he  talked  to  them 
in  a  plain  conversational  way,  in  short  sentences,  and  using  no  word 
that  was  not  level  to  the  comprehension  of  the  least  educated  man  on 
the  panel.  This  led  me,"  he  adds,  "  to  examine  my  own  style,  and 
I  set  about  reforming  it  altogether." 

Mr.  Mason  was  what  the  lawyers  call  a  "  cause-getting  man,"  like 
Sir  James  Scarlett,  Brougham's  great  opponent  at  the  English  bar.  It 
was  said  of  Scarlett,  that  he  gained  his  verdicts  because  there  were 
twelve  Scarletts  in  the  jury-box ;  and  Mason  so  contrived  to  blend  his 
stronger  mind  with  the  minds  of  the  jurymen,  that  his  thoughts 
appeared  to  be  theirs,  expressed  in  the  same  simple  words  and  quaint 
illustrations  which  they  would  have  used  if  asked  to  give  their  opin 
ions  on  the  case.  It  is  to  be  added,  that  Mason's  almost  cynical  dis 
regard  of  ornament  in  his  addresses  to  the  jury  gave  to  an  opponent 
like  Webster  the  advantage  of  availing  himself  of  those  real  orna 
ments  of  speech  which  spring  directly  from  a  great  heart  and 
imagination.  Webster,  without  ever  becoming  so  supremely  plain 
and  simple  in  style  as  Mason,  still  strove  to  emulate,  in  his  legal 
statements  and  arguments,  the  homely,  robust  common-sense  of  his 
antagonist ;  but,  wherever  the  case  allowed  of  it,  he  brought  Anto 
the  discussion  an  element  of  ww-common  sense,  the  gift  of  his  own 
genius  and  individuality,  which  Mason  could  hardly  comprehend 
sufficiently  to  controvert,  but  which  was  surely  not  without  its  effect 
in  deciding  the  verdicts  of  juries. 

It  is  probable  that  Webster  was  one  of  the  few  lawyers  and  statesmen 
that  Mason  respected.  Mason's  curt,  sharp,  "vitriolic"  sarcasms  on 
many  men  who  enjoyed  a  national  reputation,  and  who  were  popularly 
considered  the  lights  of  their  time,  still  remain  in  the  memories  of  his 
surviving  associates,  as  things  which  may  be  quoted  in  conversation, 
but  which  it  would  be  cruel  to  put  into  print.  Of  Webster,  however, 
he  neve^r  seems  to  have  spoken  a  contemptuous  word.  Indeed,  Mason, 
though  fourteen  years  older  than  Webster,  and  fighting  him  at  the 
Portsmouth  bar  with  all  the  formidable  force  of  his  logic  and  learning, 
was  from  the  first  his  cordial  friend.  That  friendship,  early  estab- 


AS  A   MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xxi 

lished  between  strong  natures  so  opposite  in  character,  was  never  dis 
turbed  by  any  collision  in  the  courts.  In  a  letter  written,  I  think,  a 
few  weeks  after  he  had  made  that  "  Reply  to  Hayne  "  which  is  con 
ceded  to  be  one  of  the  great  masterpieces  of  eloquence  in  the  recorded 
oratory  of  the  world,  Webster  wrote  jocularly  to  Mason  :  "  I  have 
been  written  to,  to  go  to  New  Hampshire,  to  try  a  cause  against  you 
next  August.  ...  If  it  were  an  easy  and  plain  case  on  our  side,  I 
might  be  willing  to  go  ;  but  I  have  some  of  your  pounding  in  my 
bones  yet,  and  I  don't  care  about  any  more  till  that  wears  out." 

It  may  be  said  that  Webster's  argument  in  the  celebrated  "  Dart 
mouth  College  Case,"  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,     _  V" 
placed  him,  at  the  age  of  thirty-six,  in  the  foremost  rank  of  the  con-  V 
stitutional  lawyers  of  the  country.     For  the  main  points  of  the  reason 
ing,   and  for  the   exhaustive   citation   of  'authorities   by  which  the 
reasoning  was  sustained,  he  was  probably  indebted  to  Mason,  who  had 
previously  argued  the  case  before  the  Superior  Court  of  New  Hamp 
shire  ;  but  his  superiority  to  Mason  was  shown  in  the  eloquence,  the 
moral  power,  he  infused  into  his  reasoning,  so  as  to  make  the  dullest 
citation  of  legal  authority  tell  on  theminds  he  addressed. 

There  is  one  incident  connected  with  this  speech  which  proves  what 
immense  force  is  given  to  simple  words  when  a  great  man  — -_great_iii>. 
his  gmotional  nature^  as  well  as  great  in  logical  power  —  is  behind  the 
words.  "  It  is,  sir,  as  I  have  said,  a  small  college.  And  yet  there 
are  those  who  love  it."  At  this  point  the  orator's  lips  quivered,  his 
voice  choked,  his  eyes  filled  with  tears,  —  all  the  memories  of  sacrifices 
endured  by  his  father  and  mother,  his  brothers  and  sisters,  in  order 
that  he  might  enjoy  its  rather  scanty  advantages  of  a  liberal  educa 
tion,  and  by  means  of  which  he  was  there  to  plead  its  cause  before  the 
supreme  tribunal  of  the  nation,  rushed  suddenly  upon  his  mind  in 
an  overwhelming  flood.  The  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  —  great 
lawyers,  tried  and  toughened  by  experience  into  a  certain  obdurate 
sense  of  justice,  and  insensible  to  any  common  appeal  to  their  hearts  ' 
—  melted  into  unwonted  tenderness,  as,  in  broken  words,  the  advocate 
proceeded  to  state  his  own  indebtedness  to  the  "  small  college,"  whose 
rights  and  privileges  he  was  there  to  defend.  Chief  Justice  Marshall's 
eyes  were  filled  with  tears;  and  the  eyes  of  the  other  justices  were 
suffused  with  a  moisture  similar  to  that  which  afflicted  the  eyes  of 
the  Chief.  As  the  orator  gradually  recovered  his  accustomed  stern 
composure  of  manner,  he  turned  to  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  — 
one  of  whom,  at  least,  was  a  graduate  of  Dartmouth,  —  and  in  his 
deepest  and  most  thrilling  tones,  thus  concluded  his  argument :  "  Sir, 


XXli  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

I  know  not  how  others  may  feel ;  but  for  myself,  when  I  see  my 
Alma  Mater  surrounded,  like  Caesar  in  the  senate-house,  by  those  who 
are  reiterating  stab  after  stab,  I  would  not,  for  this  right  hand,  have 
her  turn  to  me  and  say,  Et  tu  quoque,  mi  fili  !  —  And  thou  too,  my  son." 
The  effect  was  overwhelming ;  yet  by  what  simple  means  was  it  pro 
duced,  and  with  what  small  expenditure  of  words !  The  eloquence 
was  plainly  "  in  the  man,  in  the  subject,  and  yi  the  occasion,"  but  most 
emphatically  was  it  in  the  MAN. 

Webster's  extreme  solicitude  to  make  his  style  thoroughly  Web- 
sterian  —  a  style  unimitated  because  it  is  in  itself  inimitable  —  is 
observable  in  the  care  he  took  in  revising  all  his  speeches  and 
addresses  which  were  published  under  his  own  authority.  His  great 
Pl^yjiiouth^oration  of  1820  did  not  appear  in  a  pamphlet  form  until  a 
year  after  its  delivery.  The  chief  reason  of  this  delay  was  probably 
due  to  his  desire  of  stating  the  main  pcjitieal  idea  of  the  oration,  that 
government  is  founded  on  property,  so  clearly  that  it  could  not  be 
misconceived  by  any  honest  mind,  and  could  only  be  perverted  from 
its  plain  democratic  meaning  by  the  ingenious  malignity  of  such  minds 
as  are  deliberately  dishonest,  and  consider  lying  as  justifiable  when 
lying  will  serve  a  party  purpose.  It  is  probable  that  Webster  would 
have  been  President  of  the  United  States  had  it  not  been  for  one 
short  sentence  in  this  oration,  — "  Government  is  founded  on  prop 
erty."  It  was  of  no  use  for  his  political  friends  to  prove  that  he 
founded  on  this  general  proposition  the  most  democratic  views  as  to 
the  distribution  of  property,  and  advised  the  enactment  of  laws  calcu 
lated  to  frustrate  the  accumulation  of  large  fortunes  in  a  few  hands. 
There  were  the  words,  words  horrible  to  the  democratic  imagination, 
and  Webster  was  proclaimed  an  aristocrat,  and  an  enemy  to  the  common 
people.  But  the  delay  in  the  publication  of  the  oration  may  also  be 
supposed  to  have  been  due  to  his  desire  to  prune  all  its  grand  passages 
of  eloquence  of  every  epithet  and  image  which  should  not  be  rigor 
ously  exact  as  expressions  of  his  genuine  sentiments  and  principles. 
It  is  probable  that  the  Plymouth  oration,  as  we  possess  it  in  print,  is 
a  better  oration,  in  respect  to  composition,  than  that  which  was  heard 
by  the  applauding  tucQwd  before  which  it  was  originally  delivered. 
It  is  certain  that  the  largeness,  the  grandeur,  the  weight  of  Webster's 
whole  nature,  were  first  made  manifest  to  the  intelligent  portion 
of  his  countrymen  by  this  noble  commemorative  address. 

Yet  it  is  also  certain  that  he  was  not  himself  altogether  satisfied 
with  this  oration  ;  and  his  dissatisfaction  with  some  succeeding  pop 
ular  speeches,  memorable  in  the  annals  of  American  eloquence,  was 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xxiii 

expressed  privately  to  his  friends  in  the  most  emphatic  terms.  On  the 
day  he  completed  his  magnificent  Bunker  Hill  oration,  delivered  on 
the  17th  of  June,  1825,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  George  Ticknor :  "  I  did 
the  deed  this  morning,  i.  e.  I  finished  my  speech ;  and  I  am  pretty 
well  persuaded  that  it  will  finish  me  as  far  as  reputation  is  concerned. 
There  is  no  more  tone  in  it  than  in  the  weather  in  which  it  has  been 
written;  it  is  perpetual  dissolution  and  thaw."  Every  critic  will 
understand  the  force  of  that  word  "  tone."  He  seemed  to  feel  that  it 
had  not  enough  robust  manliness,  —  that  the  ribs  and  backbone,  the 
facts,  thoughts,  and  real  substance  of  the  address,  were  not  sufficiently 
prominent,  owing  to  the  frequency  of  those  outbursts  of  magnetic  elo 
quence,  which  made  the  immense  audience  that  listened  to  it  half 
•crazy  with  the  vehemence  of  their  applause.  On  the  morning  after 
he  had  delivered  his  eulogy  on  Adams  and  Jefferson,  he  entered  his 
office  with  his  manuscript  in  his  hand,  and  threw  it  down  on  the  desk 
of  a  young  student  at  law  whom  he  specially  esteemed,  with  the 
request,  "  There,  Tom,  please  to  take  that  discourse,  and  weed  out  all 
the  Latin  words." 

Webster's  liking  for  the  Saxon  element  of  our  composite  language 
was,  however,  subordinate  to  his  mam  purpose,  .of  selF^xgression? 
"Every  word  was  good,whe"ther  of  Saxon  or  Latin  derivation,  which" 
aided  him  to  embody  the  mood  of  mind  dominant  at  the  time  he  was 
speaking  or  writing.  No  man  had  less  of  what  has  been  called  "  the 
ceremonial  cleanliness  of  academical  pharisees ;  "  and  the  purity  of 
expression  he  aimed  at  was  to  put  into  a  form,  at  once  intelligible  and 
tasteful,  his  exact  thoughts  and  emotions.  He  tormented  reporters, 
proof-readers,  and  the  printers  who  had  the  misfortune  to  be  engaged 
in  putting  one  of  his  performances  into  type,  not  because  this  or  that 
word  was  or  was  not  Saxon  or  Latin,  but  because  it  was  inadequate  to 
convey  perfectly  his  meaning.  Mr.  Kemble,  a  great  Anglo-Saxon 
scholar,  once,  in  a  company  of  educated  gentlemen,  defied  anybody 
present  to  mention  a  single  Latin  phrase  in  our  language  for  which 
he  could  not  furnish  a  more  forcible  Saxon  equivalent.  "  The  impen 
etrability  of  matter  "  was  suggested ;  and  Kemble,  after  half  a  minute's 
reflection,  answered,  "The  un-thorough-fareableness  of  stuff."  Still, 
no  English  writer  would  think  of  discarding  such  an  abstract,  but 
convenient  and  accurate,  term  as  "  impenetrability,"  for  the  coarsely 
concrete  and  terribly  ponderous  word  which  declares  that  there  is 
no  possible  thoroughfare,  no  road,  by  which  we  can  penetrate  that 
substance  which  we  call  "  matter,"  and  which  our  Saxon  forefathers 
called  "  stuff."  Wherever  the  Latin  element  in  our  language  comes 


XXIV  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

in  to  express  ideas  and  sentiments  which  were  absent  from  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  mind,  Webster  uses  it  without  stint ;  and  some  of  the  most 
resounding  passages  of  his  eloquence  owe  to  it  their  strange  power  to 
suggest  a  certain  vastness  in  his  intellect  and  sensibility,  which  the 
quaint,  idiomatic,  homely  prose  of  his  friend,  Mason,  would  have  been 
utterly  incompetent  to  convey.  Still,  he  preferred  a  plain,  plump, 
simple  verb  or  noun  to  any  learned  phrase,  \^Jienever  he  could  employ 
it  without  limiting  his  opulent  nature  to  a  meagre  vocabulary,  in 
competent  fully  to  express  it. 

Yet  he  never  departed  from(|imp]icit.!^)  that  is,  he  rigidly  confined 
himself  to  the  use  of  such  words  as  he  had  earned  the  right  to  use. 

o 

Whenever  the  report  of  one  of  his  extemporaneous  speeches  came 
before  him  for  revision,  he  had  an  instinctive  sagacity  in  detecting 
every  word  that  had  slipped  unguardedly  from  his  tongue,  which  he 
felt,  on  reflection,  did  not  belong  to  him.  Among  the  reporters  of 
his  speeches,  he  had  a  particular  esteem  for  Henry  J.  Raymond,  after 
wards  so  well  known  as  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Times.  Mr. 
Raymond  told  me  that,  after  he  had  made  a  report  of  one  of  Webster's 
speeches,  and  had  presented  it  to  him  for  revision,  his  conversation 
with  him  was  always  a  lesson  in  rhetoric.  u  Did  I  use  that  phrase  ?  I 
hope  not.  At  any  rate,  substitute  for  it  this  more  accurate  definition." 
And  then  again :  "  That  word  does  not  express  my  meaning.  Wait 
a  moment,  and  I  will  give  you  a  better  one.  That  sentence  is  slovenly, 
—  that  image  is  imperfect  and  confused.  I  believe,  my  young  friend, 
that  you  have  a  remarkable  power  of  reporting  what  I  say ;  but,  if 
I  said  that,  and  that,  and  that,  it  must  have  been  owing  to  the  fact 
that  I  caught,  in  the  hurry  of  the  moment,  such  expressions  as  I  could 
command  at  the  moment ;  and  you  see  they  do  not  accurately  represent 
the  idea  that  was  in  my  mind."  And  thus,  Mr.  Raymond  said,  the 
orator's  criticism  upon  his  own  speech  would  go  on,  —  correction  fol 
lowing  correction,  —  until  the  reporter  feared  he  would  not  have  it 
ready  for  the  morning  edition  of  his  journal. 

Webster  had  so  much  confidence  in  Raymond's  power  of  reporting 
him  accurately,  that,  when  he  intended  to  make  an  important  speech 
in  the  Senate,  he  would  send  a  note  to  him,  asking  him  to  come  to 
Washington  as  a  personal  favor ;  for  he  knew  that  the  accomplished 
editor  had  a  rare  power  of  apprehending  a  long  train  of  reasoning, 
and  of  so  reporting  it  that  the  separate  thoughts  would  not  only  be 
exactly  stated,  but  the  relations  of  the  thoughts  to  each  other  —  a 
much  more  difficult  task  —  would  be  preserved  throughout,  and  that 
the  argument  would  be  presented  in  the  symmetrical  form  in  which 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  XXV 

it  existed  in  the  speaker's  mind.  Then  would  follow,  as  of  old,  the 
severe  scrutiny  of  the  phraseology  of  the  speech ;  and  Webster  would 
give,  as  of  old,  a  new  lesson  in  rhetoric  to  the  accomplished  reporter 
who  was  so  capable  of  following  the  processes  of  his  mind. 

The  great  difficulty  with  speakers  who  mavjbe^  sufficiently  clear  in 
statement  and  cogent  in  argument  is  that  turn  in  their  discourse  when 
their  language  labors  to  become  figurative.  Imagery  makes  palpable 
to  the  bodily  eye  the  abstract  thought  seen  only  by  the  eye  of  the 
mind ;  and  all  orators  aim  at  giving  vividness  |fn  t.hp.ir  thinking  bv_tlms 
making  their 'thoughts  visible.  The  investigation  of  the  process  of 
imagination  by  which  this  end  is  reached  is  an  interesting  study.  Woe 
to  the  speaker  who  is  ambitious  to  rise  into  the  region  of  imagination 
without  possessing  the  faculty  !  Everybody  remembers  the  remark  of 
Sheridan,  when  Tierney,  the  prosaic  Whig  leader  of  the  English  House 
of  Commons,  ventured  to  bring  in,  as  an  illustration  of  his  argument, 
the  fabulous  but  favorite  bird  of  untrained  orators,  the  phoenix, 
which  is  supposed  always  to  spring  up  alive  out  of  its  own  ashes. 
"  It  was,"  said  Sheridan,  "  a  poulterer's  description  of  a  phoenix." 
That  is,  Tierney,  from  defect  of  imagination,  could  not  lift  his  poetic 
bird  above  the  rank  of  a  common  hen  or  chicken. 

The  test  that  may  be  most  easily  applied  to  all  efforts  of  the  im 
agination  is-smcerity ;  for,  like  other  qualities  of  the  mind,  it  acts 
strictly  within  the  limits  of  a  man's  character  and  experience.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  "  experience,"  however,  must  not  be  confined  to 
what  he  has  personally  seen  and  felt,  but  is  also  to  be  extended  to 
every  thing  he  has  seen  and  felt  through  vital  sympathy  with  facts, 
scenes,  events,  and  characters,  which  he  has  learned  by  conversation 
with  other  men  and  through  books.  JWebster  laid  great  emphasis  on 
conversation  as  on  P.  of  f.np.  rnost  important  sources  of  imagery  as  well 
as  of  pos,itivp  Trnmvlpflore-  "  In  my  education,"  he  once  remarked  to 
Charles  Sumner,  u  I  have  found  that  conversation  with  the  intelli 
gent  men  I  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  has  done  more  for  me 
than  books  ever  did ;  for  I  learn  more  from  them  in  a  talk  of  half  an 
hour  than  I  could  possibly  learn  from  their  books.  Their  minds,  in 
conversation,  come  into  intimate  contact  with  my  own  mind ;  and  I 
absorb  certain  secrets  of  their  power,  whatever  may  be  its  quality, 
which  I  could  not  have  detected  in  their  works.  Converse,  con 
verse*  CONVERSE  with  living  men,  face  to  face,  and  mind  to  mind,  — 
that  is  one  of  the  best  sources  of  knowledge." 

But  my  present  object  is  simply  to  give  what  may  be  called  the 
natural  history  of  metaphor,  comparison,  image,  trope,  and  the  like, 


XXVI  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

whether  imagery  be  employed  by  an  uneducated  husbandman,  or  by 
a  great  orator  and  writer.  Many  readers  may  recollect  the  anecdote 
of  the  New  Hampshire  farmer,  who  was  once  complimented  on  the 
extremely  handsome  appearance  of  a  horse  which  he  was  somewhat 
sullenly  urging  on  to  perform  its  work.  "  Yaas,"  was  the  churlish 
reply ;  "  the  critter  looks  well  enough,  but  then  he  is  as  slow  as  —  as 
—  as  —  well,  as  slow  as  cold  molasses."  'Jhis  perfectly  answers  to 
Bacon's  definition  of  imagination,  as  "  thought  immersed  in  matter." 
The  comparison  is  exactly  on  a  level  with  the  experience  of  the  per 
son  who  used  it.  He  had  seen  his  good  wife,  on  so  many  bitter  winter 
mornings,  when  he  was  eager  for  his  breakfast,  turn  the  molasses-jug 
upside  down,  and  had  noted  so  often  the  reluctance  of  the  congealed 
sweetness  to  assume  its  liquid  nature,  that  the  thing  had  become  to 
him  the  visible  image  of  the  abstract  notion  of  slowness  of  movement. 
An  imaginative  dramatist  or  novelist,  priding  himself  on  the  exactness 
with  which  he  represented  character,  could  not  have  invented  a  more 
appropriate  comparison  to  be  put  into  the  mouth  of  an  imagined  New 
England  farmer. 

The  only  objection  to  such  rustic  poets  is,  that  a  comparatively  few 
images  serve  them  for  a  lifetime  ;  and  one  tires  of  such  "  originals  " 
after  a  few  days'  conversation  has  shown  the  extremely  limited  num 
ber  of  apt  illustrations  they  have  added  to  the  homely  poetry  of 
agricultural  life.  The  only  person,  belonging  to  this  class,  that  I  ever 
met,  who  possessed  an  imagination  which  was  continually  creative  in 
quaint  images,  was  a  farmer  by  the  name  of  Knowlton,  who  had  spent 
fifty  years  in  forcing  some  few  acres  of  the  rocky  soil  of  Cape  Ann  to 
produce  grass,  oats,  potatoes,  and,  it  may  be  added,  those  ugly  stone 
walls  which  carefully  distinguish,  at  the  cape,  one  patch  of  miserable 
sterile  land  from  another.  He  was  equal,  in  quickness  of  imaginative 
illustration,  to  the  whole  crowd  of  clergymen,  lawyers,  poets,  and 
artists,  who  filled  the  boarding-houses  of  "  Pigeon  Cove";  and  he  was 
absolutely  inexhaustible  in  fresh  and  original  imagery.  On  one  hot 
summer  day,  the  continuation  of  fourteen  hot  summer  days,  when 
there  was  fear  all  over  Cape  Ann  that  the  usual  scanty  crops  would  be 
withered  up  by  the  intense  heat,  and  the  prayer  for  rain  was  in  almost 
every  farmer's  heart,  I  met  Mr.  Knowlton,  as  he  was  looking  philo 
sophically  over  one  of  his  own  sun-smitten  fields  of  grass.  Thinking 
that  I  was  in  full  sympathy  with  his  own  feeling  at  the  dolorous  pros 
pect  before  his  eyes,  I  said,  in  accosting  him,  that  it  was  bad  weather 
for  the  farmers.  He  paused  for  half  a  minute  ;  and  then  his  mind 
flashed  back  on  an  incident  of  his  weekly  experience,  —  that  of  his 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xxvii 

wife  "  ironing  "  the  somewhat  damp  clothes  of  the  Monday's  "  wash 
ing," —  and  he  replied:  "I  see  you've  been  talking  with  our  farmers, 
who  are  too  stupid  to  know  what's  for  their  good.  Ye  see  the  spring 
here  was  uncommonly  rainy,  and  the  ground  became  wet  and  cold ; 
but  now,  for  the  last  fortnight,  G-od  has  been  putting  his  flat-iron  over 
it,  and  'twill  all  come  out  right  in  the  end." 

Thus  Mr.  Knowlton  went  on,  year  after  year,  speaking  poetry 
without  knowing  it,  as  Moliere's  Monsieur  Jourdain  found  he  had 
been  speaking  prose  all  his  life  without  knowing  it.  But  the  concep 
tion  of  the  sun  as  God's  flat-iron,  smoothing  out  and  warming  the 
moist  earth,  as  a  housewife  smooths  and  warms  the  yet  damp  shirts, 
stockings,  and  bed-linen  brought  into  the  house  from  the  clothes-lines 
in  the  yard,  is  an  astounding  illustration  of  that  "familiar  grasp  of 
things  divine,"  which  obtains  in  so  many  of  our  rustic  households. 
Dante  or  Chaucer,  two  of  the  greatest  poets  of  the  world,  would,  had 
they  happened  to  be  "  uneducated"  men,  have  seized  on  just  such  an 
image  to  express  their  idea  of  the  Divine  beneficence. 

This  natural,  this  instinctive  operation  of  the  imaginative  faculty, 
is  often  observed  in  children.  Numberless  are  the  stories  told  by  fond 
mothers  of  the  wonderful  things  uttered  by  their  babies,  shortly  after 
they  have  left  their  cradles.  The  most  striking  peculiarity  running 
through  them  all  is  the  astonishing  audacity  with  which  the  child 
treats  the  most  sacred  things.  He  or  she  seems  to  have  no  sense  of 
awe.  All  children  are  taught  to  believe  that  God  resides  above  them 
in  the  sky ;  and  I  shall  never  forget  the  shock  of  surprise  I  felt  at  the 
answer  of  a  boy  of  five  years  —  whom  I  found  glorying  over  the 
treasures  of  his  first  paint-box  —  to  my  question :  "  Which  color  do 
you  like  best  ?  "  "  Oh,"  he  carelessly  replied,  "  I  like  best  sky-blue, 
—  God's  color."  And  the  little  rogue  went  on,  daubing  the  paper 
before  him  with  a  mixture  of  all  colors,  utterly  unconscious  that  he  had 
said  any  thing  remarkable;  and  yet  what  Mrs.  Browning  specially 
distinguishes  as  the  characteristic  of  the  first  and  one  of  the  greatest 
of  English  poets,  Chaucer,  namely,  his  "  familiar  grasp  of  things 
Divine,"  could  not  have  found  a  more  appropriate  illustration  than  in 
this  chance  remark  of  a  mere  child,  expressing  the  fearlessness  of  his 
faith  in  the  Almighty  Father  above  him. 

Now  in  all  these  instinctive  operations  of  the  imagination,  whether 
in  the  mind  of  a  child  or  in  that  of  a  grown  man,  it  is  easy  to  discern 
the  mark  of  sincerity.  If  the  child  is  petted,  and  urged  by  his  mother 
to  display  his  brightness  before  a  company  of  other  mothers  and  other 
babies,  he  is  in  danger  of  learning  early  that  trick  of  falsehood,  which 


XXVJ11  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

clings  to  him  when  he  goes  to  school,  when  he  leaves  the  school  for 
the  college,  and  when  he  leaves  the  college  for  the  pursuits  of  profes 
sional  life.  The  farmer  or  mechanic,  not  endowed  with  "  college 
larnin',''  is  sure  to  become  a  bad  declaimer,  perhaps  a  demagogue, 
when  he  abandons  those  natural  illustrations  and  ornaments  of  his 
speech  which  spring  from  his  individual  experience,  and  strives  to 
emulate  the  grandiloquence  of  those  graduates  of  colleges  who  have 
the  heathen  mythology  at  the  ends  of  their  fingers  and  tongues,  and 
can  refer  to  Jove,  Juno,  Minerva,  Diana,  Venus,  Vulcan,  and  Neptune, 
as  though  they  were  resident  deities  and  deesses  of  the  college  halls. 
The  trouble  with  most  "  uneducated  "  orators  is,  that  they  become 
enamored  of  these  shining  gods  and  goddesses,  after  they  have  lost, 
through  repetition,  all  of  their  old  power  to  give  point  or  force  to  any 
good  sentence  of  modern  oratory.  During  the  times  when,  to  be  a 
speaker  at  Abolitionist  meetings,  the  speaker  ran  the  risk  of  being 
pelted  with  rotten  eggs,  I  happened  to  be  present,  as  one  of  a  small 
antislavery  audience,  gathered  in  an  equally  small  hall.  Among  the 
speakers  was  an  honest,  strong-minded,  warm-hearted  young  mechanic, 
who,  as  long  as  he  was  true  to  his  theme,  spoke  earnestly,  manfully, 
and  well ;  but  alas !  he  thought  he  could  not  close  without  calling  in 
some  god  or  goddess  to  give  emphasis  —  after  the  method  of  college 
students  —  to  his  previous  statements.  He  selected,  of  course,  that  un 
fortunate  phantom  whom  he  called  the  Goddess  of  Liberty.  "  Here,  in 
Boston,"  he  thundered,  "  where  she  was  cradled  in  Faneuil  Hall,  can  it 
be  that  Liberty  should  be  trampled  under  foot,  when,  after  two  genera 
tions  have  passed,  —  yes,  sir,  have  elapsed,  —  she  has  grown  —  yes,  sir, 
I  repeat  it,  has  grown  —  grown  up,  sir,  into  a  great  man  ?  "  The  change 
in  sex  was,  in  this  case,  more  violent  than  usual ;  but  how  many 
instances  occur  to  everybody's  recollection,  where  that  poor  Goddess 
has  been  almost  equally  outraged,  through  a  puerile  ambition  on  the 
part  of  the  orator  to  endow  her  with  an  exceptional  distinction  by 
senseless  rhodomontade,  manufactured  by  the  word-machine  which  he 
presumes  to  call  his  imagination  !  All  imitative  imagery  is  the  grave 
of  common-sense. 

Now  let  us  pass  to  an  imagination  which  is,  perhaps,  the  grandest  in 
American  oratory,  but  which  was  as  perfectly  natural  as  that  of  the 
"  cold  molasses,"  or  "  God's  flat-iron,"  of  the  New  England  farmer,  —  as 
natural,  indeed,  as  the  "  sky-blue,  God's  color,"  of  the  New  England 
boy.  Daniel  Webster,  standing  on  the  heights  of  Quebec  at  an  early 
hour  of  a  summer  morning,  heard  the  ordinary  morning  drum-beat 
which  called  the  garrison  to  their  duty.  Knowing  that  the  British 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xxix 

possessions  belted  the  globe,  the  thought  occurred  to  him  that  the 
morning  drum  would  go  on  beating  in  some  English  post  to  the  time 
when  it  would  sound  again  in  Quebec.  Afterwards,  in  a  speech  on 
President  Jackson's  Protest,  he  dwelt  on  the  fact  that  our  Revolu 
tionary  forefathers  engaged  in  a  war  with  Great  Britain  on  a  strict 
question  of  principle,  "  while  actual  suffering  was  still  afar  off."  How 
could  he  give  most  effect  to  this  statement  ?  It  would  have  been  easy 
for  him  to  have  presented  statistical  tables,  showing  the  wealth, 
population,  and  resources  of  England,  followed  by  an  enumeration  of 
her  colonies  and  military  stations,  all  going  to  prove  the  enormous 
strength  of  the  nation  against  which  the  United  American  colonies 
raised  their  improvised  flag.  But  the  thought  which  had  heretofore 
occurred  to  him  at  Quebec  happily  recurred  to  his  mind  the  moment 
it  was  needed ;  and  he  flashed  011  the  imagination  an  image  of  British 
power  which  no  statistics  could  have  conveyed  to  the  understanding,  — 
"  a  Power,"  he  said,  u  which  has  dotted  over  the  surface  of  the  whole 
globe  with  her  possessions  and  military  posts,  whose  morning  drum 
beat,  following  the  sun,  and  keeping  company  with  the  hours,  circles 
the  earth  with  one  continuous  and  unbroken  strain  of  the  martial  airs 
of  England."  Perhaps  a  mere  rhetorician  might  consider  superfluous 
the  word  "whole,"  as  applied  to  "  globe,"  and  "  unbroken,"  as  follow 
ing  "  continuous";  yet  they  really  add  to  the  force  and  majesty  of  the 
expression.  It  is  curious  that,  in  Great  Britain,  this  magnificent  im 
personation  of  the  power  of  England  is  so  little  known.  It  is  certain 
that  it  is  unrivalled  in  British  patriotic  oratory.  Not  Chatham,  not 
even  Burke,  ever  approached  it  in  the  noblest  passages  in  which  they 
celebrated  the  greatness  and  glory  of  their  country.  Webster,  it  is 
to  be  noted,  introduced  it  in  his  speech,  not  for  the  purpose  of  exalt 
ing  England,  but  of  exalting  our  Revolutionary  forefathers,  whose 
victory,  after  a  seven  years'  war  of  terrible  severity,  waged  in  vin 
dication  of  a  principle,  was  made  all  the  more  glorious  from  having 
been  won  over  an  adversary  so  formidable  and  so  vast. 

It  is  reported  that,  at  the  conclusion  of  this  speech  on  the  Presi 
dent's  Protest,  John  Sergeant,  of  Philadelphia,  came  up  to  the  orator, 
and,  after  cordially  shaking  hands  with  him,  eagerly  asked,  u  Where, 
Webster,  did  you  get  that  idea  of  the  morning  drum-beat  ?  "  Like 
other  public  men,  accustomed  to  address  legislative  assemblies,  he  was 
naturally  desirous  of  knowing  the  place,  if  place  there  was,  where  such 
images  and  illustrations  were  to  be  found.  The  truth  was  that,  if 
Webster  had  ever  read  Goethe's  Faust,  —  which  he  of  course  never 
had  done,  —  he  might  have  referred  his  old  friend  to  that  passage 


XXX  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

where  Faust,  gazing  at  the  setting  sun,  aches  to  follow  it  in  its  course 
for  ever.  "  See,"  he  exclaims,  "  how  the  green-girt  cottages  shimmer 
in  the  setting  sun.  He  bends  and  sinks,  —  the  day  is  outlived.  Yonder 
he  hurries  off,  and  quickens  other  life.  Oh,  that  I  have  no  wing  to  lift 
me  from  the  ground,  to  struggle  after — for  ever  after  —  him !  I  should 
see,  in  everlasting  evening  beams,  the  stilly  world  at  my  feet,  every 
height  on  fire,  every  vale  in  repose,  the  silver.brook  flowing  into  golden 
streams.  The  rugged  mountain,  with  all  its  dark  defiles,  would  not 
then  break  my  godlike  course.  Already  the  sea,  with  its  heated  bays, 
opens  on  my  enraptured  sight.  Yet  the  god  seems  at  last  to  sink  away. 
But  the  new  impulse  wakes.  I  hurry  on  to  drink  his  everlasting  light, 

—  the  day  before  me  and  the  night  behind,  —  and  under  me  the  waves." 
In  Faust,  the  wings  of  the  mind  follow  the  setting  sun ;  in  Webster, 
they  follow  the  rising  sun  ;  but  the  thought  of  each  circumnavigates 
the  globe,  in  joyous  companionship  with  the  same  centre  of  life,  light, 
and  heat,  —  though  the  suggestion  which  prompts  the  sublime  idea  is 
widely  different.     The  sentiment  of  Webster,  calmly  meditating  on 
the  heights  of  Quebec,  contrasts   strangely  with  the  fiery  feeling  of 
Faust,   raging  against  the    limitations    of   his   mortal    existence.     A 
humorist,  Charles  Dickens,  who  never  read  either  Goethe  or  Webster, 
has  oddly  seized  on  the  same  general  idea :  "  The  British  empire," 

—  he  says,  in  one  of  his  novels,  —  "  on  which  the  sun  never  sets,  and 
where  the  tax-gatherer  never  goes  to  bed." 

This  celebrated  image  of  the  British  "  drum-beat "  is  here  cited  sim 
ply  to  indicate  the  natural  way  in  which  all  the  faculties  of  Webster  are 
brought  into  harmonious  co-operation,  whenever  he  seriously  discusses" 
any  great  question.  His  J^derstand^ing  and  imagination,  when  both 
are  roused  into  action,  always  cordijijj;ooinjhands. His  statement  of 
facts  is  so  combined  with  the  argument  founded  on  them,  that  they 
are  interchangeable ;  his  statement  having  the  force  of  argument,  and 
his  argument  having  the  "  substantiality  "  which  properly  belongs  to 
statement ;  and  to  these  he  commonly  adds  an  imaginative  illustration, 
which  gives  increased  reality  to  both  statement  and  argument.  In 
rapidly  turning  over  the  leaves  of  the  six  volumes  of  his  Works,  one 
can  easily  find  numerous  instances  of  this  instinctive  operation  of  his 
mind.  In  his  first  Bunker  Hill  oration,  he  announces  that  "  the  prin 
ciple  of  free  governments  adheres  to  the  American  soil.  It  is  bedded 
in  it,  immovable  as  its  mountains."  Again  he  says:  "A  call  for 
the  representative  system,  wherever  it  is  not  enjoyed,  and  where  there 
is  already  intelligence  enough  to  estimate  its  value,  is  perseveringly 
made.  Where  men  may  speak  out,  they  demand  it ;  where  the  bayonet 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xxxi 

is  at  their  throats,  they  pray  for  it."  And  yet  again :  "  If  the  true 
spark  of  religious  and  civil  liberty  be  kindled,  it  will  burn.  Human 
agency  cannot  extinguish  it.  Like  the  earth's  central  fire,  it  may  be 
smothered  for  a  time ;  the  ocean  may  overwhelm  it ;  mountains  may 
press  it  down  ;  but  its  inherent  and  unconquerable  force  will  heave 
both  the  ocean  and  the  land,  and  at  some  time  or  other,  in  some  place 
or  other,  the  volcano  will  break  out,  and  flame  up  to  heaven."  It  would 
be  difficult  to  find  in  any  European  literature  a  similar  embodiment  of 
an  elemental  sentiment  of  humanity,  in  an  image  which  is  as  elemental 
as  the  sentiment  to  which  it  gives  vivid  expression. 

And  then  with  what^jjiajest^  with  what  energy,_and  with  what 
simplicity,  can  he  denounce  a  political  transaction  which,  had  it  not 
attracted  his  ire,  would  hardly  have  survived  in  the  memory  of  his 
countrymen !  Thus,  in  his  Protest  against  Mr.  Benton's  Expunging 
Resolution,  speaking  for  himself  and  his  Senatorial  colleague,  he 
says :  "  We  rescue  our  own  names,  character,  and  honor  from  all 
participation  in  this  matter;  and,  whatever  the  wayward  character  of 
the  times,  the  headlong  and  plunging  spirit  of  party  devotion,  or  the 
fear  or  the  love  of  power,  may  have  been  able  to  bring  about  elsewhere, 
we  desire  to  thank  God  that  they  have  not,  as  yet,  overcome  the  love 
of  liberty,  fidelity  to  true  republican  principles,  and  a  sacred  regard 
for  the  Constitution  in  that  State  whose  soil  was  drenched  to  a  mire  by 
the  first  and  best  blood  of  the  Revolution."  Perhaps  the  peculiar 
power  of  Webster  in  condemning  a  measure  by  a  felicitous  epithet, 
such  as  that  he  employs  in  describing  "  the  plunging  spirit  of  party 
devotion,"  was  never  more  happily  exercised.  In  that  word  "plun 
ging,"  he  intended  to  condense  all  his  horror  and  hatred  of  a  transaction 
which  he  supposed  calculated  to  throw  the  true  principles  of  constitu 
tional  government  into  a  bottomless  abyss  of  personal  government, 
where  right  constitutional  principles  would  cease  to  have  existence,  as 
well  as  cease  to  have  authority. 

There  is  one  passage  in  his  oration  at  the  completion  of  the  Bunker 
Hill  Monument,  which  may  be  quoted  as  an  illustration  .oUris  power 
^ofcompact  sfoAenient^nd  which,  at  the  same  time,  may  save  readers 
from  the  trouble  of  reading  many  excellent  histories  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  the  Spanish  dominion  in  America,  condensing,  as  it  does, 
all  which  such  histories  can  tell  us  in  a  few  smiting  sentences. 

o 

"  Spain,"  he  says,  "  stooped  on  South  America,  like  a  vulture  on  its 
prey.  Every  thing  was  force.  Territories  were  acquired  by  fire  and 
sword.  Cities  were  destroyed  by  fire  and  sword.  Hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  human  beings  fell  by  fire  and  sword.  Even  conversion  to 


XXXli  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

Christianity  was  attempted  by  fire  and  sword."  One  is  reminded,  in 
this  passage,  of  Macaulay's  method  of  giving  vividness  to  his  confident 
generalization  of  facts  b>femphatic  repetitions)  of  the  same  form  of 
words.  The  repetition  of  "fire  and  sword,"  in  this  series  of  short, 
sharp  sentences,  ends  in  forcing  the  reality  of  what  the  words  mean 
on  the  dullest  imagination  ;  and  the  climax  is  capped  by  affirming 
that  "  fire  and  sword  "  were  the  means  by  which  the  religion  of  peace 
was  recommended  to  idolaters,  whose  heathenism  was  more  benignant, 
and  more  intrinsically  Christian,  than  the  military  Christianity  which 
was  forced  upon  them. 

And  then,  again,  how  easily  Webster's  imagination  slips  in,  at  the 
end  of  a  comparatively  bald  enumeration  of  the  benefits  of  a  good 
government,  to  vitalize  the  statements  of  his  understanding !  "  Every 
where,"  he  says,  "  there  is  order,  everywhere  there  is  security.  Every 
where  the  law  reaches  to  the  highest,  and  reaches  to  the  lowest,  to 
protect  all  in  their  rights,  and  to  restrain  all  from  wrong;  and  over  all 
hovers  liberty,  —  that  liberty  for  which  our  fathers  fought  and  fell  on 
this  very  spot,  with  her  eye  ever  watchful,  and  her  eagle  wing  ever  wide 
outspread."  There  is  something  astonishing  in  the  dignity  given  in 
the  last  clause  of  this  sentence  to  the  American  eagle,  —  a  bird  so 
degraded  by  the  rhodomontade  of  fifth-rate  declaimers,  that  it  seemed 
impossible  that  the  highest  genius  and  patriotism  could  restore  it  to 
its  primacy  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  air,  and  its  just  eminence 
as  a  symbol  of  American  liberty.  It  is  also  to  be  noted,  that  Webster 
here  alludes  to  "  the  bird  of  freedom  "  only  as  it  appears  on  the 
American  silver  dollar  that  passes  daily  from  hand  to  hand,  where 
the  watchful  eye  and  the  outspread  wing  are  so  inartistically  repre 
sented  that  the  critic  is  puzzled  to  account  for  the  grandeur  of  the 
image  which  the  orator  contrived  to  evolve  from  the  barbaric  picture 
on  the  ugliest  and  clumsiest  of_civilized  coins. 

Th^compactness  of  Webster's)  statements  occasionally  reminds  us 
of  the  epigrammatic  point  which  characterizes  so  many  of  the  state 
ments  of  Burke.  Thus,  in  presenting  a  memorial  to  Congress,  signed 
by  many  prominent  men  of  business,  against  President  Jackson's  sys 
tem  of  finance,  he  saw  at  once  that  the  Democrats  would  denounce  it 
as  another  manifesto  of  the  "moneyed  aristocracy."  Accordingly 
Webster  introduced  the  paper  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate,  with  the 
preliminary  remark  :  "  The  memorialists  are  not  unaware,  that,  if 
rights  are  attacked,  attempts  will  be  made  to  render  odious  those 
whose  rights  are  violated.  Power  always  seeks  such  subjects  on 
which  to  try  its  experiments."  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  impression 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  XXxiii 

that  Webster  must  have  been  indebted  to  Burke  for  this  maxim. 
Again,  we  are  deluded  into  the  belief  that  we  must  be  reading  Burke, 
when  Webster  refers  to  the  minimum  principle  as  the  right  one  to  be 
followed  in  imposing  duties  on  certain  manufactures.  "  It  lays  the 
impost,"  he  says,  "  exactly  where  it  will  do  good,  and  leaves  the  rest 
free.  It  is  an  intelligent,  discerning,  discriminating  principle ;  not  a 
blind,  headlong,  generalizing,  uncalculating  operation.  Simplicity, 
undoubtedly,  is  a  great  beauty  in  acts  of  legislation,  as  well  as  in  the 
works  of  art ;  but  in  both  it  must  be  a  simplicity  resulting  from  con- 
gruity  of  parts  and  adaptation  to  the  end  designed ;  not  a  rude  gener 
alization,  which  either  leaves  the  particular  object  unaccomplished,  or, 
in  accomplishing  it,  accomplishes  a  dozen  others  also,  which  were  not 
desired.  It  is  a  nimp1i'?ity  wrought  out  by  knowledge  and  skill ;  not 
the  rough  product  of  an  undistinguishing,  sweeping  general  principle." 

An  ingenuous  reader,  who  has  not  learned  from  his  historical  studies 
that  men  generally  act,  not  from  arguments  addressed  to  their  under 
standings,  but  from  vehement  appeals  which  rouse  their  passions  to 
defend  their  seeming  interests,  cannot  comprehend  why  Webster's 
arguments  against  Nullification  and  Secession,  which  were  apparently 
unanswerable,  and  which  were  certainly  unanswered  either  by  Hayne 
or  Calhoun,  should  not  have  settled  the  question  in  debate  between 
the  North  and  the  South.  Such  a  reader,  after  patiently  following  all 
the  turns  and  twists  of  the  logic,  all  the  processes  of  the  reasoning 
employed  on  both  sides  of  the  intellectual  contest,  would  naturally 
conclude  that  the  party  defeated  in  the  conflict  would  gracefully 
acknowledge  the  fact  of  its  defeat ;  and,  as  human  beings,  gifted  with 
the  faculty  of  reason,  would  cheerfully  admit  the  demonstrated  results 
of  its  exercise.  He  would  find  it  difficult  to  comprehend  why  the 
men  who  were  overcome  in  a  fair  gladiatorial  strife  in  the  open  arena 
of  debate,  with  brain  pitted  against  brain,  and  manhood  against  man 
hood,  should  resort  to  the  rough  logic  of  "  blood  and  iron,"  when  the 
nobler  kind  of  logic,  that  which  is  developed  in  the  struggle  of  mind 
with  mind,  had  failed  to  accomplish  the  purposes  which  their  hearts 
and  wills,  independent  of  their  understandings,  were  bent  on  accom 
plishing. 

It  may  be  considered  certain  that  so  wise  a  statesman  as  Webster  — 
a  statesman  whose  fore  sigh  tjyvas  so  palpably  the  consequence  of  his 
insight,  and  whose  piercing  intellect  was  so  admirably  adapted  to  read 
events  in  their  principles  —  never  indulged  in  such  illusions  as  those 
which  cheered  so  many  of  his  own  adherents,  when  they  supposed  his 
triumph  in  argumentation  was  to  settle  a  matter  which  was  really  based 


xxxiv  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

on  organic  differences  in  the  institutions  of  the  two  sections  of  the 
Union.  He  knew  perfectly  well  that,  while  the  Webster  men  were 
glorying  in  his  victory  over  Calhoun,  the  Calhoun  men  were  equally 
jubilant  in  celebrating  Calhoun's  victory  over  him.  Which  of  them 
had  the  better  in  the  argument  was  of  little  importance  in  comparison 
with  the  terrible  fact  that  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  were 
widening,  year  by  year,  the  distance  which  separated  them  from  the 
people  of  the  Northern  States.  We  have  no  means  of  judging  whether 
Webster  clearly  foresaw  the  frightful  civil  war  between  the  two 
sections,  which  followed  so  soon  after  his  own  death.  We  only  know 
that,  to  him,  it  was  a  conflict  constantly  impending,  and  which  could 
be  averted  for  the  time  only  by  compromises,  concessions,  and  other 
temporary  expedients.  Tf  he  allowed  his  mind  to  pass  from  the 
pressing  questions  of  the  hour,  and  to  consider  the  radical  division 
between  the  two  sections  of  the  country  which  were  only  formally 
united,  it  would  seem  that  he  must  have  felt,  as  long  as  the  institution 
of  negro  slavery  existed,  that  he  Avas  only  laboring  to  postpone  a  con 
flict  which  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  prevent. 

But  my  present  purpose  is  simply  to  indicate  the  felicity  of  Web 
ster's  intrepid  assault  on  the  principles  which  the  Southern  disunionists 
put  forward  in  justification  of  their  acts.  Mr.  Calhoun's  favorite 
idea  was  this,  —  that  Nullification  was  a  conservative  principle,  to  be 
exercised  within  the  Union,  and  in  accordance  with  a  just  interpreta 
tion  of  the  Constitution.  "  To  begin  with  nullification,"  Webster 
retorted,  "  with  the  avowed  intent,  nevertheless,  not  to  proceed  to 
secession,  dismemberment,  and  general  revolution,  is  as  if  one  were 
to  take  the  plunge  of  Niagara,  and  cry  out  that  he  would  stop  half 
way  down.  In  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other,  the  rash  adventurer  must 
go  to  the  bottom  of  the  dark  abyss  below,  were  it  not  that  the  abyss 
has  no  discovered  bottom." 

How  admirable  also  is  his  exposure  of  the  distinction  attempted  to 
be  drawn  between  secession,  as  a  State  right  to  be  exercised  under  the 
provisions  of  what  was  called  "the  Constitutional  Compact,"  and 
revolution.  "  Secession,"  he  says,  "  as  a  revolutionary  right,  is  intelli 
gible  ;  as  a  right  to  be  proclaimed  in  the  midst  of  civil  commotions, 
and  asserted  at  the  head  of  armies,  I  can  understand  it.  But  as 
a  practical  right,  existing  under  the  Constitution,  and  in  conformity 
with  its  provisions,  it  seems  to  me  nothing  but  a  plain  absurdity ; 
for  it  supposes  resistance  to  government,  under  the  authority  of 
government  itself;  it  supposes  dismemberment,  without  violating 
the  principles  of  union;  it  supposes  opposition  to  law,  without 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  XXXV 

crime ;  it  supposes  the  total  overthrow  of  government,  without  revo 
lution." 

After  putting  some  pertinent  interrogatories  —  which  are  arguments 
in  themselves  —  relating  to  the  inevitable  results  of  secession,  he  adds, 
that  "  every  man  must  see  that  these  are  all  questions  which  can  arise 
only  after  a  revolution.  They  presuppose  the  breaking  up  of  the  gov 
ernment.  While  the  Constitution  lasts,  they  are  repressed  "  ;  —  and 
then,  with  that  felicitous  use  of  the  imagination's  a  handmaidLof 'the. 
understanding,  which  is  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  his  eloquence,  lie 
closes  the  sentence  by  saying,  that  "they  spring  up  to  annoy  and 
startle  us  only  from  its  grave."  A  mere  reasoner  would  have  stopped 
at  the  word  "  repressed  " ;  the  instantaneous  conversion  of  "  ques 
tions  "  into  spectres,  affrighting  and  annoying  us  as  they  spring  up 
from  the  grave  of  the  Constitution,  —  which  is  also  by  implication 
impersonated,  —  is  the  work  of  Webster's  ready  imagination ;  and  it 
thoroughly  vitalizes  the  statements_which  precede  it. 

A  great  test  of  tn~e" sincerity  of  a  statesman's  style  is  his  moderation. 
Now,  if  we  take  the  whole  body  of  Mr.  Webster's  speeches,  whether 
delivered  in  the  Senate  or  before  popular  assemblies,  during  the 
period  of  his  opposition  to  President  Jackson's  administration,  we  may 
well  be  surprised  at  their  moderation  of  tone  and  statement.  Every 
body  old  enough  to  recollect  the  singular  virulence  of  political  speech 
at  that  period  must  remember  it  as  disgraceful  equally  to  the  national 
conscience  and  the  national  understanding.  The  spirit  of  party,  always 
sufficiently  fierce  and  unreasonable,  was  then  stimulated  into  a  fury 
resembling  madness.  Almost  every  speaker,  Democrat  or  Whig,  was 
in  that  state  of  passion  which  is  represented  by  the  physical  sign  of 
"  foaming  at  the  mouth."  Few  mouths  then  opened  that  did  not  imme 
diately  begin  to  "  foam."  So  many  fortunes  were  suddenly  wrecked  by 
President  Jackson's  financial  policy,  and  the  business  of  the  country 
was  so  disastrously  disturbed,  that,  whether  the  policy  was  right  or 
wrong,  those  who  assailed  and  those  who  defended  it  seemed  to  be 
equally  devoid  of  common  intellectual  honesty.  "  I  do  well  to  be 
angry,"  appears  to  have  been  the  maxim  which  inspired  Democratic  and 
Whig  orators  alike  ;  and  what  reason  there  was  on  either  side  was  sub 
merged  in  the  lies  and  libels,  in  the  calumnies  and  caricatures,  in  the 
defamations  and  execrations,  which  accompanied  the  citation  of  facts 
and  the  affirmation  of  principles.  Webster,  during  all  this  time,  was 
selected  as  a  shining  mark,  at  which  every  puny  writer  or  speaker 
who  opposed  him  hurled  his  small  or  large  contribution  of  verbal 
rotten  eggs ;  and  yet  Webster  was  almost  the  only  Whig  statesman 


XXXvi  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

who  preserved  sanity  of  understanding  during  the  whole  progress  of 
that  political  riot,  in  which  thtT  passions  oi  men  became  the  masters 
of  their  understandings.  Pious  Whig  fathers,  who  worshipped  the 
"godlike  Daniel,"  went  almost  to  the  extent  of  teaching  their  chil 
dren  to  curse  Jackson  in  their  prayers ;  equally  pious  Democratic 
fathers  brought  up  their  sons  and  daughters  to  anathematize  the  fiend- 
like  Daniel  as  the  enemy  of  human  rights  ;  .and  yet,  in  reading  Web 
ster's  speeches,  covering  the  whole  space  between  1832  and  1836,  we 
can  hardly  find  a  statement  which  an  historian  of  our  day  would  not 
admit  as  a  candid  generalization  of  facts,  or  an  argument  which  would 
not  stand  the  test  of  logical  examination.  Such  an  historian  might 
entirely  disagree  with  the  opinions  of  Webster  ;  but  he  would  cer 
tainly  award  to  him  the  praise  of  being  an  honest  reasoner  and  an 
honest  rhetorician,  in  a  time  when  reason  was  used  merely  as  a  tool  of 
party  passion,  and  when  rhetoric  rushed  madly  into  the  worst  excesses 
of  rhodomontade. 

It  is  also  to  be  said  that  Webster  rarely  indulged  in  personalities. 
When  we  consider  how  great  were  his  powers  of  sarcasm  and  invec- 
Jave,  how  constant  were  the  provocations  to  exercise  them  furnished 
by  his  political  enemies,  and  how  atrociously  and  meanly  allusions  to 
his  private  affairs  were  brought  into  discussions  which  should  have 
been  confined  to  refuting  his  reasoning,  his  moderation  in  this  matter 
is  to  be  ranked  as  a  great  virtue.  He  could  not  take  a  glass  of  wine 
without  the  trivial  fact  being  announced  all  over  the  country  as  indis 
putable  proof  that  he  was  an  habitual  drunkard,  though  the  most 
remarkable  characteristic  of  his  speeches  is  their  temperance,  —  their 
"  total  abstinence "  from  all  the  intoxicating  moral  and  mental 
"  drinks "  which  confuse  the  understanding  and  mislead  the  con 
science.  He  could  not  borrow  money  on  his  note  of  hand,  like  any 
other  citizen,  without  the  circumstance  being  trumpeted  abroad  as 
incontrovertible  evidence  that  Nick  Biddle  had  paid  him  thaf;  sum 
to  defend  his  diabolical  Bank  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 
The  plain  fact  that  his  speeches  were  confined  strictly  to  the  exposi 
tion  and  defence  of  sound  opinions  on  trade  and  finance,  and  that  it 
was  difficult  to  answer  them,  only  confirmed  his  opponents  in  the 
conviction  that  old  Nick  was  at  the  bottom  of  it  all.  His  great  intel 
lect  was  admitted ;  but  on  the  high,  broad  brow,  which  was  its  mani 
festation  to  the  eye,  his  enemies  pasted  the  words,  "  To  be  let,"  or, 
"  For  sale."  The  more  impersonal  he  became  in  his  statements  and 
arguments,  the  more  truculently  was  he  assailed  by  the  personalities 
of  the  political  gossip  and  scandal-monger.  Indeed,  from  the  time  he 


AS   A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  XXXvii 

first  came  to  the  front  as  a  great  lawyer,  statesman,  and  patriot,  he 
was  fixed  upon  by  the  whole  crew  of  party  libellers  as  a  man  whose 
arguments  could  be  answered  most  efficiently  by  staining  his  char 
acter.  He  passed  through  life  with  his  head  enveloped  "  in  a  cloud  of 
poisonous  flies  "  ;  and  the  head  was  the  grandest-looking  head  that  had 
ever  been  seen  on  the  American  continent.  It  was  so  pre-eminently 
noble  and  impressive,  and  promised  so  much  more  than  it  could  possi 
bly  perform,  that  only  one  felicitous  sarcasm  of  party  malice,  among 
many  thousands  of  bad  jokes,  has  escaped  oblivion  ;  and  that  was  stolen 
from  Charles  Fox's  remark  on  Lord  Chancellor  Thurlow,  as  Fox  once 
viewed  him  sitting  on  the  wool-sack,  frowning  on  the  English  House 
of  Lords,  which  he  dominated  by  the  terror  of  his  countenance,  and  by 
the  fear  that  he  might,  at  any  moment,  burst  forth  in  one  of  his  short 
bullying,  thundering  retorts,  should  any  comparatively  weak  baron, 
earl,  marquis,  or  duke  dare  to  oppose  him.  "  Thurlow,"  said  Fox, 
"must  be  an  impostor,  for  nobody  can  be  as  wise  as  he  looks."  The 
American  version  of  this  was,  "  Webster  must  be  a  charlatan,  for 
no  one  can  be  as  great  as  he  looks." 

But  during  all  the  time  that  his  antagonists  attempted  to  elude  the 
force  of  his  arguments  by  hunting  up  the  evidences  of  his  debts,  and 
by  trying  to  show  that  the  most  considerate,  the  most  accurate,  and  the 
most  temperate  of  his  lucid  statements  were  the  products  of  physical 
stimulants,  Webster  steadily  kept  in  haughty  reserve  his  power  of 
retaliation.  In  his  speech  in  reply  to  Hayne  he  hinted  that,  if  he  wrere 
imperatively  called  upon  to  meet  blows  with  blows,  he  might  be  found 
fully  equal  to  his  antagonists  in  that  ignoble  province  of  intellectual 
pugilism ;  but  that  he  preferred  the  more  civilized  struggle  of  brain 
with  brain,  in  a  contest  which  was  to  decide  questions  of  principle. 
In  the  Senate,  where  he  could  meet  his  political  opponents  face  to 
face,  few  dared  to  venture  to  degrade  the  subject  in  debate  from  the 
discussion  of  principles  to  the  miserable  subterfuge  of  imputing  bad 
motives  as  a  sufficient  answer  to  good  arguments ;  but  still  many  of 
these  dignified  gentlemen  smiled  approval  on  the  efforts  of  the  low- 
minded,  small-minded  caucus-speakers  of  their  party,  when  they 
declared  that  Webster's  logic  was  unworthy  of  consideration,  because 
he  was  bought  by  the  Bank,  or  bought  by  the  manufacturers  of  Massa 
chusetts,  or  bought  by  some  other  combination  of  persons  who  were 
supposed  to  be  the  deadly  enemies  of  the  laboring  men  of  the  country. 
On  some  rare  occasions  Webster's  wrath  broke  out  in  such  smiting 
words  that  his  adversaries  were  cowed  into  silence,  and  cursed  the 
infatuation  which  had  led  them  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  "  logic- 


xxxviii  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

machine"  had  in  it  invectives  more  terrible  than  its  reasonings.  But 
generally  he  refrained  from  using  the  giant's  power  "  like  a  giant "  ; 
and  it  is  almost  pathetic  to  remember  that,  when  Mr.  Everett  un 
dertook  to  edit,  in  1851,  the  standard  edition  of  his  works,  Webster 
gave  directions  to  expunge  all  personalities  from  his  speeches,  even 
when  those  personalities  were  the  just  punishment  of  unprovoked 
attacks  on  his  integrity  as  a  man.  Reader^  will  look  in  vain,  in  this 
edition  of  his  works,  for  some  of  the  most  pungent  passages  which 
originally  attracted  their  attention  in  the  first  report  of  the  Defence 
of  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  At  the  time  these  directions  were 
given,  Webster  was  himself  the  object  of  innumerable  personalities, 
which  were  the  natural,  the  inevitable  results  of  his  speech  of  the 
7th  of  March,  1850. 

It  seems  to  be  a  law,  that  the  fame  of  all  public  men  shall  be  "  half 
disfame."  We  are  specially  warned  to  beware  of  the  man  of  whom  all 
men  speak  well.  Burke,  complimenting  his  friend  Fox  for  risking 
every  thing,  even  his  "  darling  popularity,"  on  the  success  of  the  East 
India  Bill,  nobly  says :  "  He  is  traduced  and  abused  for  his  sup 
posed  motives.  He  will  remember,  that  obloquy  is  a  necessary  ingre 
dient  in  all  true  glory ;  he  will  remember,  that  it  was  not  only  in  the 
Roman  customs,  but  it  is  in  the  nature  of  human  things,  that  calumny 
and  abuse  are  essential  parts  of  triumph." 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  Webster's  virtue  in  this  general 
abstinence  from  personalities  is  to  be  offset  by  the  fact  that  he  could 
throw  into  a  glance  of  his  eye,  a  contortion  of  his  face,  a  tone  of  his 
voice,  or  a  simple  gesture  of  his  hand,  more  scorn,  contempt,  and 
hatred  than  ordinary  debaters  could  express  by  the  profuse  use  of  all 
the  scurrilous  terms  in  the  English  language.  Probably  many  a  sen 
tence,  which  we  now  read  with  an  even  pulse,  was,  as  originally  deliv 
ered,  accompanied  by  such  pointing  of  the  finger,  or  such  flashing  of 
the  eye,  or  such  raising  of  the  voice,  that  the  seemingly  innocent 
words  were  poisoned  arrows  that  festered  in  the  souls  of  those  against 
whom  they  were  directed,  and  made  deadly  enemies  of  a  number  of 
persons  whom  he  seems,  in  his  printed  speeches,  never  to  have  men 
tioned  without  the  respect  due  from  one  Senator  to  another.  In  his 
speech  in  defence  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  he  had  to  repel  Mr. 
Ingersoll's  indecent  attack  on  his  integrity,  and  his  dreadful  retort  is 
described  by  those  who  heard  it  as  coming  within  the  rules  which 
condemn  cruelty  to  animals.  But  the  "  noble  rage  "  which  prompted 
him  to  indulge  in  such  unwonted  invective  subsided  with  the  occasion 
that  called  it  forth,  and  he  was  careful  to  have  it  expunged  when  the 


AS  A  MASTER   OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  XXXIX 

speech  was  reprinted.  An  eminent  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  in  commending  the  general  dignity  and  courtesy  which 
characterized  Webster's  conduct  of  a  case  in  a  court  of  law,  noted  one 
exception.  "  When,"  he  said,  "  the  opposite  counsel  had  got  him  into 
a  corner,  the  way  he  4  trampled  out '  was  something  frightful  to  behold. 
The  court  itself  could  hardly  restrain  him  in  his  gigantic  efforts  to 
extricate  himself  from  the  consequences  of  a  blunder  or  an  oversight." 
Great  writers  and  orators  are  commonly  economists  in  the  use  of 
words.  They  compel  common  words  to  bear  a  burden  of  thought  and 
emotion,  which  mere  rhetoricians,  with  all  the  resources  of  the  lan 
guage  at  their  disposal,  would  never  dream  of  imposing  upon  them. 
But  it  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  some  writers  have  the  power  of 
giving  a  new  and  special  significance  to  a  common  word,  by  impressing 
on  it  a  wealth  of  meaning  which  it  cannot  claim  for  itself.  Three 
obvious  examples  of  this  peculiar  power  may  be  cited.  Among  poets, 
Chaucer  infused  into  the  simple  word  "  green  "  a  poetic  ecstasy  which 
no  succeeding  English  poet,  not  even  Wordsworth,  has  ever  rivalled,  in 
describing  an  English  landscape  in  the  month  of  May.  Jonathan 
Edwards  fixed  upon  the  term  "  sweetness  "  as  best  conveying  his  loftiest 
conception  of  the  bliss  which  the  soul  of  the  saint  can  attain  to  on  earth, 
or  expect  to  be  blessed  with  in  heaven ;  but  not  one  of  his  theological 
successors  has  ever  caught  the  secret  of  using  "  sweetness  "  in  the 
sense  attached  to  it  by  him.  Dr.  Barrow  gave  to  the  word  "rest,"  as 
embodying  his  idea  of  the  spiritual  repose  of  the  soul  fit  for  heaven, 
a  significance  which  it  bears  in  the  works  of  no  other  great  English 
divine.  To  descend  a  little,  Webster  was  fond  of  certain  words, 
commonplace  enough  in  themselves,  to  which  he  insisted  on  imparting 
a  more  than  ordinary  import.  Two  of  these,  which  meet  us  contin 
ually  in  reading  his  speeches,  are  "  interesting  "  and  "  respectable." 
The  first  of  these  appears  to  him  competent  to  express  that  rapture  of^ 
attention  called  forth  by  a  thing,  an  event,  or  a  person,  which  other 
writers  convey  by  such  a  term  as  "  absorbing,"  or  its  numerous 
equivalents.  If  we  should  select  one  passage  from  his  works  which, 
more  than  any  other,  indicates  his  power  of  seeing  and  feeling,  through 
a  process  of  purely  imaginative  vision  and  sympathy,  it  is  that  portion 
of  his  Plymouth  oration,  where  he  places  himself  and  his  audience  as 
spectators  on  the  barren  shore,  when  the  Mayfloiver  came  into  view. 
He  speaks  or  "  the  interesting  group  upon  the  deck "  of  the  little 
vessel.  The  very  word  suggests  that  we  are  to  have  a  very  common 
place  account  of  the  landing,  and  the  circumstances  which  followed  it. 
In  an  instant,  however,  we  are  made  to  "  feel  the  cold  which 


xl  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

benumbed,  and  listen  to  the  winds  which  pierced  "  this  "  interesting  " 
group ;  and  immediately  after,  the  picture  is  flashed  upon  the  imagi 
nation  of  "chilled  and  shivering  childhood,  houseless,  but  for  a 
mother's  arms,  couchless,  but  for  a  mother's  breast,"  —  an  image  which 
shows  that  the  orator  had  not  only  transported  himself  into  a  spectator 
of  the  scene,  but  had  felt  his  own  blood  "  almost  freeze  "  in  intense 
sympathy  with  the  physical  sufferings  of  th«  shelterless  mothers  and 
children. 

There  is  no  word  which  the  novelists,  satirists,  philanthropic 
reformers,  and  Bohemians  of  our  day  have  done  so  much  to  discredit, 
and  make  dis-respectable  to  the  heart  and  the  imagination,  as  the 
word  "  respectable."  Webster  always  uses  it  as  a  term  of  eulogy. 
A  respectable  man  is,  to  his  mind,  a  person  who  performs  all  his  du 
ties  to  his  family,  his  country^  and  his  God ;  a  person  who  is  not  only 
virtuous,  but  who  has  a  clear  perception  of  the  relation  which  con 
nects  one  virtue  with  another  by  "  the  golden  thread  "  of  moderation, 
and  who,  whether  he  be  a  man  of  genius,  or  a  business  man  of  average 
talent,  or  an  intelligent  mechanic,  or  a  farmer  of  sound  moral  and 
mental  character,  is  to  be  considered  "respectable  "  because  he  is  one 
of  those  citizens  whose  intelligence  and  integrity  constitute  the  foun 
dation  on  which  the  Republic  rests.  As  late  as  1843,  in  his  noble 
oration  on  the  completion  of  the  Bunker  Hill  Monument,  he  declared 
that  if  our  American  institutions  had  done  nothing  more  than  to  pro 
duce  the  character  of  Washington,  that  alone  would  entitle  them  to  the 
respect  of  mankind.  "  Washington  is  all  our  own !  .  .  .  I  would 
cheerfully  put  the  question  to-day  to  the  intelligence  of  Europe  and 
the  world,  what  character  of  the  century,  upon  the  whole,  stands  out 
in  the  relief  of  history,  most  pure,  most  respectable,  most  sublime ;  and 
I  doubt  not,  that,  by  a  suffrage  approaching  to  unanimity,  the  answer 
would  be  Washington  !  "  It  is  needless  to  quote  other  instances  of  the 
peculiar  meaning  he  put  into  the  word  "  respectable,"  when  we  thus 
find  him  challenging  the  Europe  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  name  a 
match  for  Washington,  and  placing  "most  respectable"  after  "  most 
pure,"  and  immediately  preceding  "  most  sublime,"  in  his  enumera 
tion  of  the  three  qualities  in  which  Washington  surpassed  all  men  of 
his  century. 

It  has  been  often  remarked  that  Webster  adapted  his  style,  cvi-n  his 
habits  of  mind  and  modes  of  reasoning,  to  the  particular  auditors  he 
desired  to  influence ;  but  that,  whether  he  addressed  an  unorganized 
crowd  of  people,  or  a  jury,  or  a  bench  of  judges,  or  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  he  ever  proved  himself  an  orator  of  the  first  class. 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xli 

His  admirers  commonly  confine  themselves  to  the  admirable  sagacity 
with  which  he  discriminated  between  the  kind  of  reasoning  proper  to 
be  employed  when  he  addressed  courts  and  juries,  and  the  kind  of 
reasoning  which  is  most  effective  in  a  legislative  assembly.  The 
lawyer  and  the  statesman  were,  in  Webster,  kept  distinct,  except  so 
far  as  he  was  a  lawyer  who  had  argued  before  the  Supreme  Court 
questions  of  constitutional  law.  An  amusing  instance  of  this  abne 
gation  of  the  lawyer,  while  incidentally  bringing  in  a  lawyer's 
knowledge  of  judicial  decisions,  occurs  in  a  little  episode  in  his 
debate  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  1849,  as  to  the  relation  of  Congress  to 
the  Territories.  Mr.  Calhoun  said  that  he  had  been  told  that  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  had  decided,  in  one  case,  that  the 
Constitution  did  not  extend  to  the  Territories,  but  that  he  was 
44  incredulous  of  the  fact."  "Oh!"  replied  Mr.  Webster,  "I  can 
remove  the  gentleman's  incredulity  very  easily,  for  I  can  assure  him 
that  the  same  thing  has  been  decided  by  the  United  States  courts  over 
and  over  again  for  the  last  thirty  years."  It  will  be  observed,  how 
ever,  that  Mr.  Webster,  after  communicating  this  important  item  of 
information,  proceeded  to  discuss  the  question  as  if  the  Supreme 
Court  had  no  existence,  and  bases  his  argument  on  the  plain  terms  of 
the  Constitution,  and  the  plain  facts  recorded  in  the  history  of  the 
government  established  by  it. 

Macaulay,  in  his  lively  way,  has  shown  the  difficulty  of  manufactur 
ing  English  statesmen  out  of  English  lawyers,  though,  as  lawyers,  their 
rank  in  the  profession  may  be  very  high.  "  Their  arguments,"  he  says, 
"  are  intellectual  prodigies,  abounding  with  the  happiest  analogies  and 
the  most  refined  distinctions.  The  principles  of  their  arbitrary  science 
being  once  admitted,  the  statute-books  and  the  reports  being  once 
assumed  as  the  foundations  of  reasoning,  these  men  must  be  allowed 
to  be  perfect  masters  of  logic.  But  if  a  question  arises  as  to  the  pos 
tulates  on  which  their  whole  system  rests,  if  they  are  called  upon  to 
vindicate  the  fundamental  maxims  of  that  system  which  they  have 
passed  their  lives  in  studying,  these  very  men  often  talk  the  language 
of  savages  or  of  children.  Those  who  have  listened  to  a  man  of  this 
class  in  his  own  court,  and  who  have  witnessed  the  skill  with  which  he 
analyzes  and  digests  a  vast  mass  of  evidence,  or  reconciles  a  crowd 
of  precedents  which  at  first  sight  seem  contradictory,  scarcely  know 
him  again  when,  a  few  hours  later,  they  hear  him  speaking  on  the 
other  side  of  Westminster  Hall  in  his  capacity  of  legislator.  They 
can  scarcely  believe  that  the  paltry  quirks  which  are  faintly  heard 
through  a  storm  of  coughing,  and  which  do  not  impose  on  the  plainest 


I 
4 


xlii  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

country  gentleman,  can  proceed  from  the  same  sharp  and  vigorous 
intellect  which  had  excited  their  admiration  under  the  same  roof,  and 
on  the  same  day."  And  to  this  keen  distinction  between  an  English 
lawyer,  and  an  English  lawyer  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
may  be  added  the  peculiar  kind  of  sturdy  manliness  which  is  demanded 
in  any  person  who  aims  to  take  a  leading  part  in  Parliamentary 
debates.  Erskine,  probably  the  greatest  adw)cate  who  ever  appeared 
in  the  English  courts  of  law,  made  but  a  comparatively  poor  figure  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  as  a  member  of  the  Whig  opposition.  *'  The 
truth  is,  Erskine,"  Sheridan  once  said  to  him,  "  you  are  afraid  of  Pitt, 
and  that  is  the  flabby  part  of  your  character." 

But  Macaulay,  in  another  article,  makes  a  point  against  the  leaders 
of  party  themselves.  His  definition  of  Parliamentary  government  is 
"  government  by  speaking " ;  and  he  declares  that  the  most  effective 
speakers  are  commonly  ill-informed,  shallow  in  thought,  devoid  of 
large  ideas  of  legislation,  hazarding  the  loosest  speculations  with  the 
utmost  intellectual  impudence,  and  depending  for  success  on  volubility 
of  speech,  rather  than  on  accuracy  of  knowledge  or  penetration  of 
intelligence.  "  The  tendency  of  institutions  like  those  of  England," 
he  adds,  "  is  to  encourage  readiness  in  public  men,  at  the  expense  both 
of  fulness  and  of  exactness.  The  keenest  and  most  vigorous  minds  of 
every  generation,  minds  often  admirably  fitted  for  the  investigation  of 
truth,  are  habitually  employed  in  producing  arguments  such  as  no 
man  of  sense  would  ever  put  into  a  treatise  intended  for  publication, 
arguments  which  are  just  good  enough  to  be  used  once,  when  aided  by 
fluent  delivery  and  pointed  language."  And  he  despairingly  closes 
with  the  remark,  that  he  "  would  sooner  expect  a  great  original  work 
on  political  science,  such  a  work,  for  example,  as  the  Wealth  of 
Nations,  from  an  apothecary  in  a  country  town,  or  from  a  minister  in 
the  Hebrides,  than  from  a  statesman  who,  ever  since  he  was  one-and- 
twenty,  had  been  a  distinguished  debater  in  the  House  of  Commons." 

Now  it  is  plain  that  neither  of  these  contemptuous  judgments 
applies  to  Webster.  He  was  a  great  lawyer;  but  as  a  legislator  the 
precedents  of  the  lawyer  did  not  control  the  action  or  supersede  the 
principles  of  the  statesman.  He  was  one  of  the  most  formidable 
debaters  that  ever  appeared  in  a  legislative  assembly ;  and  yet  those 
who  most  resolutely  grappled  with  him  in  the  duel  of  debate  would 
be  the  last  to  impute  to  him  inaccuracy  of  knowledge  or  shallowness 
of  thought.  He  carried  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  trained 
mind,  disciplined  by  the  sternest  culture  of  his  faculties,  disdaining 
any  plaudits  which  were  not  the  honest  reward  of  robust  reasoning  on 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xliii 

generalized  facts,  and  "  gravitating  "  in  the  direction  of  truth,  whether 
he  hit  or  missed  it.  In  his  case,  at  least,  there  was  nothing  in  his 
legal  experience,  or  in  his  legislative  experience,  which  would  have 
unfitted  him  for  producing  a  work  on  tlie'  science  of  politics.  The 
best  speeches  in  the  House  of  Commons  of  Lord  Palmerston  and  Lord 
John  Russell  appear  very  weak  indeed,  as  compared  with  the  Reply  to 
Hayne,  or  the  speech  on  "  The  Constitution  not  a  Compact  between. 
Sovereign  States,"  or  the  speech  on  the  President's  Protest. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said,  when  we  remember  the  hot 
contests  between  the  two  men,  that  there  is  something  plaintive  in 
Calhoun's  dying  testimony  to  Webster's  austere  intellectual  conscien 
tiousness.  Mr.  Venables,  who  attended  the  South  Carolina  states 
man  in  his  dying  hours,  wrote  to  Webster :  "  When  your  name  was 
mentioned  he  remarked  that  '  Mr.  Webster  has  as  high  a  standard  of 
truth  as  any  statesman  I  have  met  in  debate.  Convince  him,  and  he 
cannot  reply ;  he  is  silenced  ;  he  cannot  look  truth  in  the  face  and 
oppose  it  by  argument.  I  think  that  it  can  be  readily  perceived  by 
his  manner  when  he  felt  the  unanswerable  force  of  a  reply.'  He 
often  spoke  of  you  in  my  presence,  and  always  kindly  and  most 
respectfully."  Now  it  must  be  considered  that,  in  debate,  the  minds 
of  Webster  and  Calhoun  had  come  into  actual  contact  and  collision. 
Each  really  felt  the  force  of  the  other.  An  ordinary  duel  might  be 
ranked  among  idle  pastimes  when  compared  with  the  stress  and  strain 
and  pain  of  their  encounters  in  the  duel  of  debate.  A  sword-cut  or 
pistol-bullet,  maiming  the  body,  was  as  nothing  in  comparison  with 
the  wounds  they  mutually  inflicted  on  that  substance  which  was 
immortal  in  both.  It  was  a  duel,  or  series  of  duels,  in  which  mind 
was  opposed  to  mind,  and  will  to  will,  and  where  the  object  appeared 
to  be  to  inflict  moral  and  mental  annihilation  on  one  of  the  comba 
tants.  There  never  passed  a  word  between  them  on  which  the  most 
ingenious  Southern  jurists,  in  their  interpretations  of  the  "code"  of 
honor,  could  have  found  matter  for  a  personal  quarrel;  and  yet  these 
two  proud  and  strong  personalities  knew  that  they  were  engaged  in  a 
mortal  contest,  in  which  neither  gave  quarter  nor  expected  quarter. 
Mr.  Calhoun's  intellectual  egotism  was  as  great  as  his  intellectual 
abilHy!  He  always  supposed  that  hewas  the  "victor  in  every  close 
logical  wrestle  with  any  mind  to  which  his  own  was  opposed*  He 
never  wrestled  with  a  mind,  until  he  met  Webster's^hich  in  tenacity, 
grasp,  and  power  was  a  match  for  his  own.  He,  of  course,  thought 
his  antagonist  was  beaten  by  his  superior  strength  and  amplitude  of 
argumentation ;  but  it  is  still  to  be  noted  that  he,  the  most  redoubtable 


xliv  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

opponent  that  Webster  ever  encountered,  testified,  though  in  equivocal 
terms,  to  Webster's  intellectual  honesty.  When  he  crept,  half  dead, 
into  the  Senate-Chamber  to  hear  Webster's  speech  of  the  7th  of 
March,  1850,  he  objected  emphatically  at  the  end  to  Webster's  decla 
ration  that  the  Union  could  not  be  dissolved.  After  declaring  that 
Calhoun's  supposed  case  of  justifiable  resistance  came  within  the 
definition  of  the  ultimate  right  of  revolution,  which  is  lodged  in  all 
oppressed  communities,  Webster  added  that  he  did  not  at  that  time 
wish  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  the  United  States 
government.  "  The  honorable  gentleman  and  myself,"  he  said,  "have 
broken  lances  sufficiently  often  before  on  that  subject."  "I  have  no 
desire  to  do  it  now,"  replied  Calhoun  ;  and  Webster  blandly  retorted, 
u  I  presume  the  gentleman  has  not,  and  I  have  quite  as  little."  One  is 
reminded  here  of  Dr.  Johnson's  remark,  when  he  was  stretched  on  a 
sick-bed,  with  his  gladiatorial  powers  of  argument  suspended  by  physi 
cal  exhaustion.  "If  that  fellow  Burke  were  now  present,"  the  Doctor 
humorously  murmured,  "  he  would  certainly  kill  me." 

But  to  Webster's  eminence  as  a  lawyer  and  a  statesman,  it  is  proper 
to  add,  that  he  has  never  been  excelled  as  a  writer  of  state  papers 
among  the  public  men  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Emerson  has  a 
phrase  which  is  exactly  applicable  to  these  efforts  of  Webster's  mind. 
That  phrase  is,  "  superb  propriety."  Throughout  his  despatches,  he 
always  seems  to  feel  that  he  impersonates  his  country ;  and  the  gravity 
and  weight  of  his  style  are  as  admirable  as  its  simplicity  and  majestic 
ease.  "  Daniel  Webster,  his  mark,"  is  indelibly  stamped  on  them  alL 
When  the  Treaty  of  Washington  was  criticised  by  the  Whigs  in  the 
English  Parliament,  Macaulay  specially  noticed  the  difference  in  the 
style  of  the  two  negotiators.  Lord  Ashburton,  he  said,  had  compro 
mised  the  honor  of  his  country  by  "  the  humble,  caressing,  wheedling 
tone  "  of  his  letters,  a  tone  which  contrasted  strangely  with  "  the  firm, 
resolute,  vigilant,  and  unyielding  manner  "  of  the  American  Secretary 
of  State.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  no  other  opponent  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel's  administration,  not  even  Lord  Palmerston  and  Lord  John  Russell, 
struck  at  the  essential  weakness  of  Lord  Ashburton's  despatches  with 
the  force  and  sagacity  which  characterized  Macaulay's  assault  on  the 
treaty.  Indeed,  a  rhetorician  and  critic  less  skilful  than  Macaulay  can 
easily  detect  that  "  America "  is  represented  fully  in  Webster's 
despatches,  while  "  Britannia  "  has  a  very  amiable,  but  not  very  forci 
ble,  representative  in  Lord  Ashburton.  Had  Palmerston  been  the 
British  plenipotentiary,  we  can  easily  imagine  how  different  would 
have  been  the  task  imposed  on  Webster.  As  the  American  Secretary 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xlv 

was  generally  in  the  right  in  every  position  he  assumed,  he  would 
probably  have  triumphed  even  over  Palmerston  ;  but  the  letters  of  the 
"  pluckiest "  of  English  statesmen  would,  we  may  be  sure,  have  never 
been  criticised  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  "  humble,  wheedling,  and 
caressing." 

In  addition,  however,  to  his  legal  arguments,  his  senatorial  speeches, 
and  his  state  papers,  Webster  is  to  be  considered  as  the  grpa.fp.st  ny?  tnr^ 
our  country  has  produced  in  his  addresses  before  miscellaneous  assem 
blages  of  the  people.  In  saying  this  we  do  not  confine  the  remark  to 
such  noble  orations  as  those  on  the  "  First  Settlement  of  New  Eng 
land,"  u  The  Bunker  Hill  Monument,"  and  "  Adams  and  Jefferson," 
but  extend  it  so  as  to  include  speeches  before  great  masses  of  people 
who  could  be  hardly  distinguished  from  a  mob,  and  who  were  under  no 
restraint  but  that  imposed  by  their  own  self-respect  and  their  respect 
for  the  orator.  On  these  occasions  he  was  uniformly  successful.  It  is 
impossible  to  detect,  in  any  reports  of  these  popular  addresses,  that  he 
ever  stooped  to  employ  a  style  of  speech  or  mode  of  argument  com 
monly  supposed  appropriate  to  a  speaker  on  the  "  stump";  and  yet  he 
was  the  greatest  "  stump  "  orator  that  our  country  has  ever  seen.  He 
seemedlxroreligrrH^^  five,  or  tensor  even  twenty  thousand 

people,  in  the  open  air,  trusting  that  the  penetrating  tones  of  his  voice 
would  reach  even  the  ears  of  those  who  were  on  the  ragged  edges  of 
the  swaying  crowd  before  him ;  and  he  would  thus  speak  to  the  sover 
eign  people,  in  their  unorganized  state  as  a  collection  of  uneasy  and 
somewhat  belligerent  individuals,  with  a  dignity^and  majesty  similar  to 
the  dignity  and  majesty  which  characterized  his  arguments  before  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  or  before  a  bench  of  judges.  A  large 
portion  of  his  published  works  consist  of  such  speeches,  and  they  rank 
only  second  among  the  remarkable  productions  of  his  mind. 

The  question  arises,  How  could  he  hold  the  attention  of  such 
audiences  without  condescending  to  flatter  their  prejudices,  or  without 
occasionally  acting  the  part  of  the  sophist  and  the  buffoon  ?  Much 
may  be  said,  in  accounting  for  this  phenomenon,  about  his  widely 
extended  reputation,  his  imposing  presence,  the  vulgar  curiosity  to  see 
a  man  whom  even  the  smallest  country  newspaper  thought  of  sufficient 
importance  to  defame,  his  power  of  giving  vitality  to  simple  words 
which  the  most  ignorant  of  Ins  auditors  could  easily  understand,  and 
the  instinctive  respect  which  the  rudest  kind  of  men  feel  for  a  grand 
specimen  of  robust  manhood.  But  the  real,  the  substantial  source  of 
his  power  over  such  audiences  proceeded  from  his  respect  for  them  ; 
and  their  respect  for  him  was  more  or  less  consciously  founded  on  the 
perception  of  this  fact. 


xlvi  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

Indeed,  a  close  scrutiny  of  his  speeches  will  show  how  conscien 
tiously  he  regards  the  rights  of  other  minds,  however  inferior  they 
may  be  to  his  own  ;  and  this  virtue,  for  it  is  a  virtue,  is  never  more 
apparent  than  in  his  arguments  and  appeals  addressed  to  popular 
assemblies.  No  working-man,  whether  farmer,  mechanic,  factory 
"  hand,"  or  day-laborer,  ever  deemed  himself  insulted  by  a  word  from 
the  lips  of  Daniel  Webster ;  he  felt  himself  »rather  exalted  in  his  own 
esteem,  for  the  time,  by  coming  in  contact  with  that  beneficent  and 
comprehensive  intelligence,  which  cherished  among  its  favorite  ideas  a 
scheme  for  lifting  up  the  American  laborer  to  a  height  of  comfort  and 
respectability  which  the  European  laborer  could  hardly  hope  to  attain. 
Prominent  politicians,  men  of  wealth  and  influence,  statesmen  of  high 
social  and  political  rank,  may,  at  times,  have  considered  Webster  as 
arrogant  and  bad-tempered,  and  may,  at  times,  have  felt  disposed  to 
fasten  a  quarrel  upon  him  ;  even  in  Massachusetts  this  disposition 
broke  out  in  conventions  of  the  party  to  which  he  belonged ;  but  it 
would  be  in  vain  to  find  a  single  laboring-man,  whether  he  met  Web 
ster  in  private,  or  half  pushed  and  half  fought  his  way  into  a  mass 
meeting,  in  order  to  get  his  ears  into  communication  with  the  orator's 
voice,  who  ever  heard  a  word  from  him  which  did  not  exalt  the  dignity 
of  labor,  or  which  was  not  full  of  sympathy  for  the  laborer's  occasional 
sorrows  and  privations.  Webster  seemed  to  have  ever  present  to  his 
mind  the  poverty  of  the  humble  home  of  his  youth.  His  father,  his 
brothers,  he  himself,  had  all  been  brought  up  to  consider  manual 
toil  a  dignified  occupation,  and  as  consistent  with  the  exercise  of  all 
the  virtues  which  flourish  under  the  domestic  roof.  More  than  this,  it 
may  be  said  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  intimate  friends,  his 
sympathies  to  the  last  were  most  warmly  with  common  laborers. 
Indeed,  if  we  closely  study  the  private  correspondence  of  this  states 
man,  who  was  necessarily  brought  into  relations,  more  or  less  friendly, 
with  the  conventionally  great  men  of  the  world,  European  as  well  as 
American,  we  shall  find  that,  after  all,  he  took  more  real  interest  in 
Seth  Peterson,  and  John  Taylor,  and  Porter  Wright,  men  connected 
with  him  in  fishing  and  farming,  than  he  did  in  the  ambassadors  of 
foreign  states  whom  he  met  as  Senator  or  as  Secretary  of  State,  or  in 
all  the  members  of  the  polite  society  of  Washington,  New  York,  and 
Boston.  He  was  very  near  to  Nature  himself ;  and  the  nearer  a  man 
was  to  Nature,  the  more  he  esteemed  him.  Thus  persons  who  super 
intended  his  farms  and  cattle,  or  who  pulled  an  oar  in  his  boat  when 
he  ventured  out  in  search  of  cod  and  halibut,  thought  "  Squire  Web 
ster  "  a  man  who  realized  their  ideal  and  perfection  of  good-fellowship ; 


AS  A  MASTER   OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  xlvii 

while  it  may  confidently  be  said  that  many  of  his  closest  friends 
among  men  of  culture,  including  lawyers,  men  of  letters,  and  states 
men  of  the  first  rank,  must  have  occasionally  resented  the  "  anfractu- 
osities  "  of  his  mood  and  temper.  But  Seth  Peterson,  and  Porter 
Wright,  and  John  Taylor,  never  complained  of  these  "  anfrac- 
tuosities."  Webster,  in  fact,  is  one  of  the  few  public  men  of  the 
country  in  whose  championship  of  the  rights  and  sympathy  with  the 
wrongs  of  labor  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  arts  of 
the  demagogue ;  and  in  this  fact  we  may  find  the  reason  why  even  the 
"  roughs,"  who  are  present  in  every  mass  meeting,  always  treated  him 
with  respect.  Perhaps  it  would  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  here, 
that,  in  his  Speech  of  the  7th  of  March,  he  missed  a  grand  opportunity 
to  vindicate  Northern  labor,  in  the  reference  he  made  to  a  foolish 
tirade  of  a  Senator  from  Louisiana,  who  "  took  pains  to  run  a  con 
trast  between  the  slaves  of  the  South  and  the  laboring  people  of  the 
North,  giving  the  preference,  in  all  points  of  condition,  of  comfort, 
and  happiness,  to  the  slaves  of  the  South."  Webster  made  a  complete 
reply  to  this  aspersion  on  Northern  labor ;  but,  as  his  purpose  was  to 
conciliate,  he  did  not  blast  the  libeller  by  quoting  the  most  eminent 
example  that  could  be  named  demonstrating  the  falsehood  of  the 
slave-holding  Senator's  assertion.  Without  deviating  from  the  con 
ciliatory  attitude  he  had  assumed,  one  could  easily  imagine  him  as  lift 
ing  his  large  frame  to  its  full  height,  flashing  from  his  rebuking  eyes 
a  glance  of  scorn  at  the  "  amiable  Senator,"  and  simply  saying,  "  / 
belong  to  the  class  which  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  stigmatizes  as 
more  degraded  than  the  slaves  of  the  South."  There  was  not  at  the 
time  any  Senator  from  the  South,  except  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  the  most 
prejudiced  Southern  man  would  have  thought  of  comparing  with  Web 
ster  in  respect  to  intellectual  eminence ;  and,  if  Webster  had  then  and 
there  placed  himself  squarely  on  his  position  as  the  son  of  a  Northern 
laborer,  we  should  have  been  spared  all  the  rhetoric  about  Northern 
'"  mud-sills,"  with  which  the  Senate  was  afterwards  afflicted.  Web 
ster  was  our  man  of  men ;  and  it  would  seem  that  he  should  have 
crushed  such  talk  at  the  outset,  by  proudly  assuming  that  Northern 
labor  was  embodied  and  impersonated  in  him,  —  that  HE  had  sprung 
from  its  ranks,  and  was  proud  of  his  ancestry. 

An  ingenious  and  powerful,  but  paradoxical  thinker,  once  told  me 
that  I  was  mistaken  in  calling  Jonathan  Edwards  and  Daniel  Webster 
great  reasoners.  "  They  were  bad  reasoners,"  he  added,  "  but  great 
poets."  Without  questioning  the  right  of  the  author  of  "  An  Enquiry 
into  the  Modern  Prevailing  Notion  of  that  Freedom  of  the  Will,  which 


Xlviii  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

is  supposed  to  be  Essential  to  Moral  Agency,"  to  be  ranked  among  the 
most  eminent  of  modern  logicians,  I  could  still  understand  why  he  was 
classed  among  poets  ;  for  whether  Edwards  paints  the  torments  of 
hell  or  the  bliss  of  heaven,  his  imagination  almost  rivals  that  of  Dante 
in  intensity  of  realization.  But  it  was  at  first  puzzling  to  comprehend 
why  Webster  should  be  depressed  as  a  reasoner  in  order  to  be  exalted 
as  a  poet.  The  images  and  metaphors  scattered  over  his  speeches  are 
so  evidently  brought  in  to  illustrate  and  enforce  his  statements  and 
arguments,  that,  grand  as  they  often  are,  the  imagination  displayed  in 
iKelins" still  a  faculty  strictly  subsidiary  to  the  reasoning  power.  It 
was  only  after  reflecting  patiently  for  some  time  on  the  seeming 
paradox  that  I  caught  a  glimpse  of  my  friend's  meaning  ;  and  it  led 
me  at  once  to  consider  an  entirely  novel  question,  not  heretofore 
mooted  by  any  of  Webster's  critics,  whether  friendly  or  unfriendly,  in 
their  endeavors  to  explain  the  reason  of  his  influence  over  the  best 
minds  of  the  generation  to  which  he  belonged.  In  declaring  that,  as 
a  poet,  he  far  exceeded  any  capacity  he  evinced  as  a  reasoner,  my 
paradoxical  friend  must  have  meant  that  Webster  had  the  poet's 
power  of  so  organizing  a  speech,  that  it  stood  out  to  the  eye  of  the 
mind  as  a  palpable  intellectual  product  and  fact,  possessing,  not  merely 
that  vague  reality  which  comes  from  erecting  a  plausible  mental 
structure  of  deductive  argumentation,  based  on  strictly  limited  prem 
ises,  but  a  positive  reality,  akin  to  the  products  of  Nature  herself, 
when  she  tries  her  hand  in  constructing  a  ledge  of  rocks  or  rearing  a 
chain  of  hills. 

In  illustration,  it  may  be  well  to  cite  the  example  of  poets  with 
whom  Webster,  of  course,  cannot  be  compared.  Among  the  great 
mental  facts,  palpable  to  the  eyes  of  all  men  interested  in  literature, 
are  such  creations  as  the  Iliad,  the  Divine  Comedy,  the  great 
Shakspearian  dramas,  the  Paradise  Lost,  and  Faust.  The  commen 
taries  and  criticisms  on  these  are  numerous  enough  to  occupy  the 
shelves  of  a  large  library ;  some  of  them  attempt  to  show  that  Homer, 
Dante,  Shakspeare,  Milton,  and  Goethe  were  all  wrong  in  their 
methods  of  creation ;  but  they  still  cannot  obscure,  to  ordinary  vision, 
the  lustre  of  these  luminaries  as  they  placidly  shine  in  the  intellectual 
firmament,  which  is  literally  over  our  heads.  They  are  as  palpable, 
to  the  eye  of  the  mind,  as  Sirius,  Arcturus,  the  Southern  Cross, 
and  the  planets  Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn,  are  to  the  bodily 
sense.  M.  Taine  has  recently  assailed  the  Paradise  Lost  with  the 
happiest  of  French  epigrams;  he  tries  to  prove  that,  in  construc 
tion,  it  is  the  most  ridiculously  inartistic  monstrosity  that  the  imagi- 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  xlix 

nation  of  a  great  mind  ever  framed  out  of  chaos ;  but,  after  we  have 
thoroughly  enjoyed  the  play  of  his  wit,  there  the  Paradise  Lost 
remains,  an  undisturbed  object  in  the  intellectual  heavens,  disdaining 
to  justify  its  right  to  exist  on  any  other  grounds  than  the  mere  fact  of 
its  existence ;  and,  certainly,  not  more  ridiculous  than  Saturn  himself, 
as  we  look  at  him  through  a  great  equatorial  telescope,  swinging 
through  space  encumbered  with  his  clumsy  ring,  and  his  wrangling 
family  of  satellites,  but  still,  in  spite  of  peculiarities  on  which  M. 
Taine  might  exercise  his  wit  until  doomsday,  one  of  the  most  beauti 
ful  and  sublime  objects  which  the  astronomer  can  behold  in  the  whole 
phenomena  of  the  heavens. 

Indeed,  in  reading  criticisms  on  such  durable  poetic  creations  and 
organizations  as^we  have  named,  one  is  reminded  of  Sydney  Smith's 
delicious  chaffing  of  his  friend  Jeffrey,  on  account  of  Jeffrey's  sensi 
tiveness  of  literary  taste,  and  his  inward  rage  that  events,  men,  and 
books,  outside  of  him,  do  not  correspond  to  the  exacting  rules  which  are 
the  products  of  his  own  subjective  and  somewhat  peevish  intelligence. 
"  I  like,"  says  Sydney,  u  to  tell  you  these  things,  because  you  never  do 
so  well  as  when  you  are  humbled  and  frightened,  and,  if  you  could  be 
alarmed  into  the  semblance  of  modesty,  you  would  charm  everybody ; 
but  remember  my  joke  against  you  about  the  moon  :  '  D — n  the  solar 
system!  bad  light  —  planets  too  distant — pestered  with  comets  — 
feeble  contrivance ;  could  make  a  better  with  great  ease.' ' 

Now  when  a  man,  in  whatever  department  or  direction  of  thought 
his  activity  is  engaged,  succeeds  in  organizing,  or  even  welding 
together,  the  materials  on  which  he  works,  so  that  the  product,  as  a 
whole,  is  visible  to  the  mental  eye,  as  a  new  creation  or  construction, 
he  has  an  immense  advantage  over  all  critics  of  his  performance. 
Refined  reasonings  are  impotent  to  overthrow  it ;  epigrams  glance  off 
from  it,  as  rifle-bullets  rebound  when  aimed  at  a  granite  wall ;  and  it 
stands  erect  long  after  the  reasonings  and  the  epigrams  are  forgotten. 
Even  when  its  symmetry  is  destroyed  by  a  long  and  destructive  siege, 
a  pile  of  stones  still  remains,  as  at  Fort  Sumter,  to  attest  what  power 
of  resistance  it  opposed  to  all  the  resources  of  modern  artillery. 

If  we  look  at  Webster's  greatest  speeches,  as,  for  instance,  "  The 
Reply  to  Hayne,"  "  The  Constitution  not  a  Compact  between  Sover 
eign  States,"  "The  President's  Protest,"  and  others  that  might  be 
mentioned,  we  shall  find  that  they  partake  of  the  character  of  organic 
formations,  or  at  least  of  skilful  engineering  or  architectural  construc 
tions.  Even  Mr.  Calhoun  never  approached  him  in  this^rt_of ^giving 
objective  reality  to  a  speech,  which,  after  all,  is  found,  on  analysis,  to 

d 


1  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

consist  only  of  a  happy  collocation  and  combination  of  words ;  but  in 
Webster  the  words  are  either  all  alive  with  the  creative  spirit  of  the 
poet,  or,  at  the  worst,  resemble  the  blocks  of  granite  or  marble  which 
the  artisan  piles,  one  on  the  other,  and  the  result  of  which,  though  it 
may  represent  a  poor  style  of  architecture,  is  still  a  rude  specimen  of 
a  Gothic  edifice.  The  artist  and  artificer  are  both  observable  in  Web 
ster's  work ;  but  the  reality  and  solidity  of  ijie  construction  cannot  be 
questioned.  At  the  present  time,  an  educated  reader  would  be  specially 
interested  in  the  mental  processes  by  which  Webster  thus  succeeded  in 
giving  objective  existence  and  validity  to  the  operations  of  his  mind  ; 
and,  whether  sympathizing  with  his  opinions  or  not,  would  as  little 
think  of  refusing  to  read  them  because  of  their  Whiggism,  as  he  would 
think  of  refusing  to  read  Homer  because  of  his  heathenism,  or  Dante 
because  of  his  Catholicism,  or  Milton  because  of  his  compound  of 
Avianism  and  Calvinism,  or  Goethe  because  of  his  Pantheism.  The 
fact  which  would  most  interest  such  a  reader  would  be,  that  Webster 
had,  in  some  mysterious  way,  translated  and  transformed  his  abstract 
propositions  into  concrete  substance  and  form.  The  form  might 
offend  his  reason,  his  taste,  or  his  conscience ;  but  he  could  not  avoid 
admitting  that  it  had  a  form,  while  most  speeches,  even  those  made  by 
able  men,  are  comparatively  formless,  however  lucid  they  may  be  in 
the  array  of  facts,  and  plausible  in  the  order  and  connection  of  argu 
ments. 

In  trying  to  explain  this  power,  the  most  obvious  comparison 
which  would  arise  in  the  mind  of  an  intelligent  reader  would  be,  that 
Webster,  as  a  rhetorician,  resembled  Vauban  and  Cohorn  as  military 
engineers.  In  the  war  of  debate,  he  so  fortified  the  propositions  he 
maintained,  that  they  could  not  be  carried  by  direct  assault,  but  must 
be  patiently  besieged.  The  words  he  employed  were  simple  enough, 
and  fell  short  of  including  the  vocabulary  of  even  fifth-rate  declaimers  ; 
but  he  had  the  art  of  so  disposing  'them  that,  to  an  honest  reasoner, 
the  position  he  took  appeared  to  be  impregnable.  To  assail  it  by  the 
ordinary  method  of  passionate  protest  and  illogical  reasoning,  was  as 
futile  as  a  dash  of  light  cavalry  would  have  been  against  the  defences 
of  such  cities  as  Namur  and  Lille.  Indeed,  in  his  speech,  "  The  Consti 
tution  not  a  Compact  between  Sovereign  States,"  he  erected  a  whole 
Torres  Vedras  line  of  fortifications,  on  which  legislative  Massenas 
dashed  themselves  in  vain,  and,  however  strong  in  numbers  in  respect 
to  the  power  of  voting  him  down,  recoiled  defeated  in  every  attempt 
to  reason  him  down. 

In  further  illustration  of  this  peculiar  power  of  Webster,  the  Speech 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  11 

of  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  maybe  cited,  for  its  delivery  is  to  be  ranked 
with  the  most  important  historical  events.  For  some  years  it  was  the 
object  of  the  extremes  of  panegyric  and  the  extremes  of  execration. 
But  this  effort  is  really  the  most  loosely  constructed  of  all  the  great  pro 
ductions  of  Webster's  mind.  In  force,  compactness,  and  completeness, 
in^closeness  of  thought  to  things,  in  closeness  of  imagery  to  the  reason 
ing  it  illustrates,  and  in  general  intellectual  fibre,  muscle,  and  bone,  it 
cannot  be  compared  to  such  an  oration  as  that  on  the  "  First  Settlement 
of  New  England,"  or  such  a  speech  as  that  which  had  for  its  theme, 
"  The  Constitution  not  a  Compact  between  Sovereign  States  " ;  but, 
after  all  deductions  have  been  made,  it  was  still  a  speech  which  frowned 
upon  its  opponents  as  a  kind  of  verbal  fortress  constructed  both  for  the 
purpose  of  defence  and  aggression.  Its  fame  is  due,  in  a  great  degree, 
to  its  resistance  to  a  storm  of  assaults,  such  as  had  rarely  before  been 
concentrated  on  any  speech  delivered  in  either  branch  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States.  Indeed,  a  very  large  portion  of  the  intellect,  the 
moral  sentiment,  and  the  moral  passion  of  the  free  States  was  directed 
against  it.  There  was  not  a  weapon  in  the  armory  of  the  dialectician 
or  the  rhetorician  which  was  not  employed  with  the  intent  of  demolish 
ing  it.  Contempt  of  Webster  was  vehemently  taught  as  the  beginning, 
of  political  wisdom.  That  a  speech,  thus  assailed,  should  survive  the 
attacks  made  upon  it,  appeared  to  be  impossible.  And  yet  it  did 
survive,  and  is  alive  now,  while  better  speeches,  or  what  the  present 
writer  thought,  at  the  time,  to  be  more  convincing  speeches,  have  not 
retained  individual  existence,  however  deeply  they  may  have  influ 
enced  that  public  opinion  which,  in  the  end,  determines  political 
events.  "  I  still  live,"  was  Webster's  declaration  on  his  death-bed., 
when  the  friends  gathered  around  it  imagined  he  had  breathed  his 
last ;  and  the  same  words  might  be  uttered  by  the  Speech  of  the  7th 
of  March,  could  it  possess  the  vocal  organ  which  announces  personal 
existence.  Between  the  time  it  was  originally  delivered  and  the 
present  year  there  runs  a  great  and  broad  stream  of  blood,  shed  from 
the  veins  of  Northern  and  Southern  men  alike ;  the  whole  political 
and  moral  constitution  of  the  country  has  practically  suffered  an 
abrupt  change;  new  problems  engage  the  attention  of  thoughtful 
statesmen ;  much  is  forgotten  which  was  once  considered  of  the  first 
importance ;  but  the  7th  of  March  Speech,  battered  as  it  is  by  innu 
merable  attacks,  is  still  remembered  at  least  as  one  which  called  forth 
more  power  than  it  embodied  in  itself.  This  persistence  of  life  is  du£ 
to  the  fact  that  it  was  "  organized." 

Is  this  power  of  organization  common  among  orators?     It  seems  to 


Hi  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

me  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  very  rare.  In  some  of  Burke's  speeches, 
in  which  his  sensibility  and  imagination  were  thoroughly  under  the 
control  of  his  judgment,  as,  for  instance,  his  speech  on  Conciliation 
with  America,  that  on  Economical  Reform,  and  that  to  the  Elec 
tors  of  Bristol,  we  find  the  orator  to  be  a  consummate  master  of  the 
art  of  so  constructing  a  speech  that  it  serves  the  immediate  object 
which  prompted  its  delivery,  while  at  the  ^ame  time  it  has  in  it  a 
principle  of  vitality  which  makes  it  survive  the  occasion  that  called 
it  forth.  But  the  greatest  of  Burke's  speeches,  if  we  look  merely  at 
the  richness  and  variety  of  mental  power  and  the  force  and  depth  of 
moral  passion  displayed  in  it,  is  his  speech  on  the  Nabob  of  Arcot's 
Debts.  No  speech  ever  delivered  before  any  assembly,  legislative, 
judicial,  or  popular,  can  rank  with  this  in  respect  to  the  abundance  of 
its  facts,  reasonings,  and  imagery,  and  the  ferocity  of  its  moral  wrath. 
It  resembles  the  El  Dorado  that  Voltaire's  Candide  visited,  where  the 
boys  played  with  precious  stones  of  inestimable  value,  as  our  boys 
play  with  ordinary  marbles;  for  to  the  inhabitants  of  El  Dorado 
diamonds  and  pearls  were  as  common  as  pebbles  are  with  us. 

But  the  defect  of  this  speech,  which  must  still  be  considered,  on  the 
whole,  the  most  inspired  product  of  Burke's  great  nature,  was  this,  — 
that  it  did  not  strike  its  hearers  or  readers  as  having  reality  for  its 
basis  or  the  superstructure  raised  upon  it.  Englishmen  could  not 
believe  then,  and  most  of  them  probably  do  not  believe  now,  that 
it  had  any  solid  foundation  in  incontrovertible  facts.  It  did  not 
"  fit  in  "  to  their  ordinary  modes  of  thought ;  and  it  has  never  been 
ranked  with  Burke's  " organized"  orations;  it  has  never  come  home 
to  what  Bacon  called  the  "  business  and  bosoms  "  of  his  countrymen. 
They  have  generally  dismissed  it  from  their  imaginations  as  "  a 
phantasmagoria  and  a  hideous  dream  "  created  by  Burke  under  the 
impulse  of  the  intense  hatred  he  felt  for  the  administration  which 
succeeded  the  overthrow  of  the  government,  which  was  founded  on 
the  coalition  of  Fox  and  North. 

Now,  in  simple  truth,  the  speech  is  the  most  masterly  statement  of 
facts,  relating  to  the  oppression  of  millions  of  the  people  of  India, 
which  was  ever  forced  on  the  attention  of  the  House  of  Commons,  — 
a  legislative  assembly  which,  it  may  be  incidentally  remarked,  was 
practically  responsible  for  the  just  government  of  the  immense  Indian 
empire  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  curious  that  the  main  facts  on  which 
the  argument  of  Burke  rests  have  been  confirmed  by  James  Mill,  the 
coldest-blooded  historian  that  ever  narrated  the  enormous  crimes 
which  attended  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  British  power  in  Hindos- 


AS   A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  liii 

tan,  and  a  man  who  also  had  a  strong  intellectual  antipathy  to  the 
mind  of  Burke.  In  making  the  speech,  Burke  had  documentary 
evidence  of  a  large  portion  of  the  transactions  he  denounced,  and  had 
divined  the  rest.  Mill  supports  him  both  as  regards  the  facts  of 
which  Burke  had  positive  knowledge,  and  the  facts  which  he  deduc 
tively  inferred  from  the  facts  he  knew.  Having  thus  a  strong  founda 
tion  for  his  argument,  he  exerted  every  faculty  of  his  mind,  and  every 
impulse  of  his  moral  sentiment  and  moral  passion,  to  overwhelm  the 
leading  members  of  the  administration  of  Pitt,  by  attempting  to  make 
them  accomplices  in  crimes  which  would  disgrace  even  slave-traders 
on  the  Guinea  coast.  The  merely  intellectual  force  of  his  reasoning  is 
crushing ;  his  analysis  seems  to  be  sharpened  by  his  hatred  ;  and  there 
is  no  device  of  contempt,  scorn,  derision,  and  direct  personal  attack, 
which  he  does  not  unsparingly  use.  In  the  midst  of  all  this  mental 
tumult,  inestimable  maxims  of  moral  and  political  wisdom  are  shot 
forth  in  short  sentences,  which  have  so  much  of  the  sting  and  bril 
liancy  of  epigram,  that  at  first  we  do  not  appreciate  their  depth  of 
thought;  and  through  all  there  burns  such  a  pitiless  fierceness  of 
moral  reprobation  of  cruelty,  injustice,  and  wrong,  that  all  the  accred 
ited  courtesies  of  debate  are  violated,  once,  at  least,  in  every  five 
minutes.  In  any  American  legislative  assembly  he  would  have  been 
called  to  order  at  least  once  in  five  minutes.  The  images  which  the 
orator  brings  in  to  give  vividness  to  his  argument  are  sometimes 
coarse ;  but,  coarse  as  they  are,  they  admirably  reflect  the  moral  tur 
pitude  of  the  men  against  whom  he  inveighs.  Among  these  is  the 
image  \vith  which  he  covers  Dundas,  the  special  friend  of  Pitt,  with  a 
ridicule  which  promises  to  be  immortal.  Dundas,  on  the  occasion 
when  Fox  and  Burke  called  for  papers  by  the  aid  of  which  they  pro 
posed  to  demonstrate  the  iniquity  of  the  scheme  by  which  the  minis- 
try  proposed  to  settle  the  debts  of  the  Nabob  of  Arcot,  pretended  that 
the  production  of  such  papers  would  be  indelicate,  —  "  that  this  inquiry 
is  of  a  delicate  nature,  and  that  the  state  will  suffer  detriment  by  the 
exposure  of  this  transaction."  As  Dundas  had  previously  brought  out 
six  volumes  of  Reports,  generally  confirming  Burke's  own  views  of  the 
corruption  and  oppression  which  marked  the  administration  of  affairs 
in  India,  he  laid  himself  open  to  Burke's  celebrated  assault.  Dundas 
and  delicacy,  he  said,  were  "  a  rare  and  singular  coalition."  And  then 
follows  an  image  of  colossal  coarseness,  such  as  might  be  supposed 
capable  of  rousing  thunder-peals  of  laughter  from  a  company  of  fes 
tive  giants, —  an  image  which  Lord  Brougham  declared  offended  his 
sensitive  taste,  —  the  sensitive  taste  of  one  of  the  most  formidable 


liv  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

legal  and  legislative  bullies  that  ever  appeared  before  the  juries  or 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  and  who  never  hesitated  to  use  any 
illustration,  however  vulgar,  which  he  thought  would  be  effective  to 
degrade  his  opponents. 

But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  indelicacy  of  Burke's  image, 
it  was  one  eminently  adapted  to  penetrate  through  the  thick  hide  of 
the  minister  of  state  at  whom  it  was  aimed,  and  it  shamed  him  as  far 
as  a  profligate  politician  like  Dundas  was  capable  of  feeling  the  sen 
sation  of  shame.  But  there  are  also  flashes,  or  rather  flames,  of  impas 
sioned  imagination,  in  the  same  speech,  which  rush  up  from  the  main 
body  of  its  statements  and  arguments,  and  remind  us  of  nothing  so 
much  as  of  those  jets  of  incandescent  gas  which,  we  are  told  by 
astronomers,  occasionally  leap,  from  the  extreme  outer  covering  of  the 
sun,  to  the  height  of  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  sixty  thousand 
miles,  and  testify  to  the  terrible  forces  raging  within  it.  After  read 
ing  this  speech  for  the  fiftieth  time,  the  critic  cannot  free  himself  from 
the  rapture  of  admiration  and  amazement  which  he  experienced  in  his 
first  fresh  acquaintance  with  it.  Yet  its  delivery  in  the  House  of 
Commons  (February  28,  1785)  produced  an  effect  so  slight,  that  Pitt, 
after  a  few  minutes'  consultation  with  Grenville,  concluded  that  it  was 
not  worth  the  trouble  of  being  answered ;  and  the  House  of  Commons, 
obedient  to  the  Prime  Minister's  direction,  negatived,  by  a  large 
majority,  the  motion  in  advocating  which  Burke  poured  out  the 
wonderful  treasures  of  his  intellect  and  imagination.  To  be  sure,  the 
House  was  tired  to  death  with  the  discussion,  was  probably  very 
sleepy,  and  the  orator  spoke  five  hours  after  the  members  had  already 
shouted,  "  Question  !  Question  !  " 

The  truth  is,  that  this  speech,  unmatched  though  it  is  in  the  litera 
ture  of  eloquence,  had  not,  as  has  been  previously  stated,  the  air  of 
reality.  It  struck  the  House  as  a  magnificent  Oriental  dream,  as  an 
Arabian  Nights'  Entertainment,  as  a  tale  told  by  an  inspired  madman, 
"  full  of  sound  and  fury,  signifying  nothing " ;  and  the  evident  par 
tisan  intention  of  the  orator  to  blast  Pitt's  administration  by  exhibit 
ing  its  complicity  in  one  of  the  most  enormous  frauds  recorded  in 
history,  confirmed  the  dandies,  the  cockneys,  the  bankers,  and  the 
country  gentlemen,  who,  as  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  stood 
by  Pitt  with  all  the  combined  force  of  their  levity,  their  venality, 
and  their  stupidity,  in  the  propriety  of  voting  Burke  down.  And 
though  now,  when  the  substantial  truth  of  all  the  facts  he  alleged  is 
established  on  evidence  which  convinces  historians,  the  admiring 
reader  can  understand  why  it  failed  to  convince  Burke's  con  tempo- 


AS   A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  ly 

raries,  and  why  it  still  appears  to  lack  the  characteristics  of  a  speech 
thoroughly  organized.  Indeed,  the  mind  of  Burke,  when  it  was  de-^ 
livered,  can  only  be  compared  to  a  volcanic  mountain  in  eruption ;  — 
not  merely  a  volcano  like  that  of  Vesuvius,  visited  by  scientists  and 
amateurs  in  crowds,  when  it  deigns  to  pour  forth  its  flames  and  lava 
for  the  entertainment  of  the  multitude ;  but  a  lonely  volcano,  like 
that  of  Etna,  rising  far  above  Vesuvius  in  height,  far  removed  from 
all  the  vulgar  curiosity  of  a  body  of  tourists,  but  rending  the  earth  on 
which  it  stands  with  the  mighty  earthquake  throes  of  its  fiery  centre 
and  heart.  The  moral  passion,  —  perhaps  it  would  be  more  just  to 
say  the  moral  fury,  —  displayed  in  the  speech,  is  elemental,  and  can  be 
compared  to  nothing  less  intense  than  the  earth's  interior  fire  and 
heat. 

Now  in  Webster's  great  legislative  efforts,  his  mind  is  never  exhib 
ited  in  a  state  of  eruption.  In  the  most  excited  debates  in  which  he 
bore  a  prominent  part,  nothing  strikes  us  more  than  the  admirable 
self-possession,  than  the  majestic  inward  calm,  which  presides  over  all 
the  operations  of  his  mind  and  the  impulses  of  his  sensibility,  so  that, 
in  building  up  the  fabric  of  his  speech,  he  has  his  reason,  imagination, 
and  passion  under  full  control,  —  using  each  faculty  and  feeling  as  the 
occasion  may  demand,  but  never  allowing  himself  to  be  used  by  it,  — - 
and  always  therefore  conveying  the  impression  of  power  in  reserve, 
while  he  may,  in  fact,  be  exercising  all  the  power  he  has  to  the 
utmost.  In  laboriously  erecting  his  edifice  of  reasoning  he  also  studi 
ously  regards  the  intellects  and  the  passions  of  ordinary  men ;  strives 
to  bring  his  mind  into  cordial  relations  with  theirs ;  employs  every 
faculty  he  possesses  to  give  reality,  to  give  even  visibility,  to  his 
thoughts ;  and  though  he  never  made  a  speech  which  rivals  that  of 
Burke  on  the  Nabob  of  Arcot's  Debts,  in  respect  to  grasp  of  under 
standing,  astounding  wealth  of  imagination  and  depth  of  moral  passion, 
he  always  so  contrived  to  organize  his  materials  into  a  complete  whole, 
that  the  result  stood  out  clearly  to  the  sight  of  the  mind,  as  a  structure 
resting  on  strong  foundations,  and  reared  to  due  height  by  the  mingled 
skill  of  the  artisan  and  the  artist.  When  he  does  little  more  than 
weld  his  materials  together,  he  is  still  an  artificer  of  the  old  school  of 
giant  workmen,  the  school  that  dates  its  pedigree  from  Tubal  Cain. 

After  all  this  wearisome  detail  and  dilution  of  the  idea  attempted 
to  be  expressed,  it  may  be  that  I  have  failed  to  convey  an  adequate 
impression  of  what  constitutes  Webster's  distinction  among  orators,  as 
far  as  orators  have  left  speeches  which  are  considered  an  invaluable 
addition  to  the  literature  of  the  language  in  which  they  were  origi- 


Ivi  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

nally  delivered.  Everybody  understands  why  any  one  of  the  great 
sermons  of  Jeremy  Taylor,  or  the  sermon  of  Dr.  South  on  "Man 
created  in  the  Image  of  God,"  or  the  sermon  of  Dr.  Barrow  on 
"  Heavenly  Rest,"  differs  from  the  millions  on  millions  of  doubtless 
edifying  sermons  that  have  been  preached  and  printed  during  the 
last  two  centuries  and  a  half ;  but  everybody  does  not  understand  the 
distinction  between  one  brilliant  oration^ and  another,  when  both 
made  a  great  sensation  at  the  time,  while  only  one  survived  in  litera 
ture.  Probably  Charles  James  Fox  was  a  more  effective  speaker  in 
the  House  of  Commons  than  Edmund  Burke ;  probably 


was  a  more  effective  speaker  in  Congress  than  Daniel  Webster ;  but 
when  the  occasions  on  which  their  speeches  were  made  are  found 
gradually  to  fade  from  the  memory  of  men,  why  is  it  that  the 
speeches  of  Fox  and  Clay  have  no  recognized  position  in  literature, 
while  those  of  Burke  and  Webster  are  ranked  with  literary  produc 
tions  of  the  first  class?  The  reason  is  as  really  obvious  as  that  which 
explains  the  exceptional  value  of  some  of  the  efforts  of  the  great 
orators  of  the  pulpit.  Jeremy  Taylor,  Dr.  South,  and  Dr.  Barrow, 
different  as  they  were  in  temper  and  disposition,  succeeded  in  "  organ 
izing"  some  masterpieces  in  their  special  department  of  intellectual 
and  moral  activity ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  Burke  and  Webster  in 
the  departments  of  legislation  and  political  science.  The  "  occasion  " 
was  merely  an  opportunity  for  the  consolidation  into  a  speech  of  the 
rare  powers  and  attainments,  the  large  personality  and  affluent 
thought,  which  were  the  spiritual  possessions  of  the  man  Avho  made 
it,  —  a  speech  which  represented  the  whole  intellectual  manhood  of 
the  speaker,  —  a  manhood  in  which  knowledge,  reason,  imagination, 
and  sensibility  were  all  consolidated  under  the  directing  power  of 
will. 

A  pertinent  example  of  the  difference  we  have  attempted  to  in 
dicate  may  be  easily  found  in  contrasting  Fox's  closing  speech  on 
the  East  India  Bill  with  Burke's  on  the  same  subject.  For  imme 
diate  effect  on  the  House  of  Commons,  it  ranks  with  the  most  mas 
terly  of  Fox's  Parliamentary  efforts.  The  hits  on  his  opponents  were 
all  "telling."  The  argumentum  ad  hominem,  embodied  in  short, 
sharp  statements,  or  startling  interrogatories,  was  never  employed 
with  more  brilliant  success.  The  reasoning  was  rapid,  compact,  en 
cumbered  by  no  long  enumeration  of  facts,  and,  though  somewhat 
unscrupulous  here  and  there,  was  driven  home  upon  his  adversaries 
with  a  skill  that  equalled  its  audacity.  It  may  be  said  that  there  is 
not  a  sentence  in  the  whole  speech  which  was  not  calculated  to  sting 


AS   A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  Ivii 

a  sleepy  audience  into  attention,  or  to  give  delight  to  a  fatigued 
audience  which  still  managed  to  keep  its  eyes  and  minds  wide  open. 
Even  in  respect  to  the  principles  of  liberty  and  justice,  which  were 
the  animating  life  of  the  bill,  Fox's  terse  sentences  contrast  strangely 
with  the  somewhat  more  lumbering  and  elaborate  paragraphs  of 
Burke.  "  What,"  he  exclaims,  putting  his  argument  in  his  favorite 
interrogative  form,  —  "  what  is  the  most  odious  species  of  tyranny  ? 
Precisely  that  which  this  bill  is  meant  to  annihilate.  That  a  hand 
ful  of  men,  free  themselves,  should  exercise  the  most  base  and  abomi 
nable  despotism  over  millions  of  their  fellow-creatures  ;  that  innocence 
should  be  the  victim  of  oppression  ;  that  industry  should  toil  for 
rapine  ;  that  the  harmless  laborer  should  sweat,  not  for  his  own  bene 
fit,  but  for  the  luxury  and  rapacity  of  tyrannic  depredation ;  —  in  a 
word,  that  thirty  millions  of  men,  gifted  by  Providence  with  the 
ordinary  endowments  of  humanity,  should  groan  under  a  system  of 
despotism  unmatched  in  all  the  histories  of  the  world  ?  What  is  the 
end  of  all  government  ?  Certainly,  the  happiness  of  the  governed. 
Others  may  hold  different  opinions ;  but  this  is  mine,  and  I  proclaim 
it.  What,  then,  are  we  to  think  of  a  government  whose  good  fortune 
is  supposed  to  spring  from  the  calamities  of  its  subjects,  whose  aggran 
dizement  grows  out  of  the  miseries  of  mankind?  This  is  the  kind 
of  government  exercised  under  the  East  Indian  Company  upon  the 
natives  of  Hindostan ;  and  the  subversion  of  that  infamous  govern 
ment  is  the  main  object  of  the  bill  in  question."  And  afterwards  he 
says,  with  admirable  point  and  pungency  of  statement :  "  Every  line 
in  both  the  bills  which  I  have  had  the  honor  to  introduce,  presumes 
the  possibility  of  bad  administration ;  for  every  word  breathes  sus 
picion.  This  bill  supposes  that  men  are  but  men.  It  confides  in  no 
integrity  ;  it  trusts  no  character ;  it  inculcates  the  wisdom  of  a  jealousy 
of  power,  and  annexes  responsibility,  not  only  to  every  action,  but 
even  to  the  inaction  of  those  who  are  to  dispense  it.  The  necessity  of 
these  provisions  must  be  evident,  when  it  is  known  that  the  different 
misfortunes  of  the  company  have  resulted  not  more  from  what  their 
servants  did,  than  from  what  the  masters  did  not." 

There  is  a  directness  in  such  sentences  as  these  which  we  do  not 
find  in  Burke's  speech  on  the  East  India  Bill ;  but  Burke's  remains  as 
a  part  of  English  literature,  and  in  form  and  substance,  especially  in 
substance,  is  so  immensely  superior  to  that  of  Fox,  that,  in  quoting 
sentences  from  the  latter,  one  may  almost  be  supposed  to  rescue  them 
from  that  neglect  which  attends  all  speeches  which  do  not  reach 
beyond  the  occasion  which  calls  them  forth.  In  Bacon's  phrase,  the 


Iviii  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

speech  of  Fox  shows  "small  matter,  and  infinite  agitation  of  wit"; 
in  Burke's,  we  discern  large  matter  with  an  abundance  of  "  wit " 
proper  to  the  discussion  of  the  matter,  but  nothing  which  suggests 
the  idea  of  mere  "  agitation."  Fox,  in  his  speeches,  subordinated  every 
thing  to  the  immediate  impression  he  might  make  on  the  House  of 
Commons.  He  deliberately  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  a  speech 
that  read  well  must  be  a  bad  speech  ;  an,d,  in  a  literary  sense,  the 
House  of  Commons,  which  he  entered  before  he  was  twenty,  may  be 
called  both  the  cradle  and  the  grave  of  his  fame.  It  has  been  said 
that  he  was  a  debater  whose  speeches  should  be  studied  by  every  man 
who  wishes  "  to  learn  the  science  of  logical  defence  "  ;  that  he  alone, 
among  English  orators,  resembles  Demosthenes,  inasmuch  as  his 
reasoning  is  "  penetrated  and  made  red-hot'  by  passion " ;  and  that 
nothing  could  excel  the  effect  of  his  delivery  when  "  he  was  in  the  full 
paroxysm  of  inspiration,  foaming,  screaming,  choked  by  the  rushing 
multitude  of  his  words."  But  not  one  of  his  speeches,  not  even  that 
on  the  East  India  Bill,  or  on  the  Westminster  Scrutiny,  or  on  the 
Russian  Armament,  or  on  Parliamentary  Reform,  or  on  Mr.  Pitt's 
Rejection  of  Bonaparte's  Overtures  for  Peace,  has  obtained  an  abiding 
place  in  the  literature  of  Great  Britain.  It  would  be  no  disparage 
ment  to  an  educated  man,  if  it  were  said  that  he  had  never  read  these 
speeches ;  but  it  would  be  a  serious  bar  to  his  claim  to  be  considered 
an  English  scholar,  if  he  confessed  to  be  ignorant  of  the  great  speeches 
of  Burke;  for  such  a  confession  would  be  like  admitting  that  he  had 
never  read  the  first  book  of  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Bacon's 
Essays  and  Advancement  of  Learning,  Milton's  Areopagitica,  Butler's 
Analogy,  and  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations. 

When  we  reflect  on  the  enormous  number  of  American  speeches 
which,  when  they  were  first  delivered,  were  confidently  predicted,  by 
appreciating  friends,  to  insure  to  the  orators  a  fame  which  would  be 
immortal,  one  wonders  a  little  at  the  quiet  persistence  of  the  speeches 
of  Webster  in  refusing  to  die  with  the  abrupt  suddenness  of  other 
orations,  which,  at  the  time  of  their  delivery,  seemed  to  have  an  equal 
chance  of  renown.  The  lifeless  remains  of  such  unfortunate  failures 
are  now  entombed  in  that  dreariest  of  all  mausoleums,  the  dingy 
quarto  volumes,  hateful  to  all  human  eyes,  which  are  lettered  on  the 
back  with  the  title  of  "  Congressional  Debates,"  —  a  collection  of 
printed  matter  which  members  of  Congress  are  wont  to  send  to  a  favored 
few  among  their  constituents,  and  which  are  immediately  consigned  to 
the  dust-barrel  or  sold  to  pedlers  in  waste  paper,  according  as  the  rage 
of  the  recipients  takes  a  scornful  or  an  economical  direction.  It  would 


AS  A  MASTER   OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  lix 

seem  that  the  speeches  of  Webster  are  saved  from  this  fate,  by  the  fact 
that,  in  them,  the  mental  and  moral  life  of  a  great  man,  and  of  a 
great  master  of  the  English  language,  are  organized  in  a  palpable  intel^ 
lectual  form.  The  reader  feels  that  they  have  some  of  the  substantial 
qualities  which  he  recognizes  in  looking  at  the  gigantic  constructions 
of  the  master  workmen  among  the  crowd  of  the  world's  engineers  and 
architects,  in  looking  at  the  organic  products  of  Nature  herself,  and 
in  surveying,  through  the  eye  of  his  imagination,  those  novel  repro 
ductions  of  Nature  which  great  poets  have  embodied  in  works  which 
are  indelibly  stamped  with  the  character  of  deathlessness. 

But  Webster  is  even  more  obviously  a  poet  —  subordinating  "  the 
shows  of  things  to  the  desires  of  the  mind"  —  in  his  magnificent  ideal 
ization,  or  idolization,  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union.  By  the  magic 
of  his  imagination  and  sensibility  he  contrived  to  impress  on  the  minds 
of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  free  States  a  vague,  grand  idea  that 
the  Constitution  was  a  sacred  instrument  of  government,  —  a  holy  shrine 
of  fundamental  law,  which  no  unhallowed  hands  could  touch  without 
profanation,  —  a  digested  system  of  rights  and  duties,  resembling 
those  institutes  which  were,  in  early  times,  devised  by  the  immortal 
gods  for  the  guidance  of  infirm  mortal  man ;  and  the  mysterious 
creatures,  half  divine  and  half  human,  who  framed  this  remarkable 
document,  were  always  reverently  referred  to  as  "  the  Fathers," — as 
persons  who  excelled  all  succeeding  generations  in  sagacity  and  wis 
dom  ;  as  inspired  prophets,  who  were  specially  selected  by  Divine 
Providence  to  frame  the  political  scriptures  on  which  our  political 
faith  was  to  be  based,  and  by  which  our  political  reason  was  to  be 
limited.  The  splendor  of  the  glamour  thus  cast  over  the  imagi 
nations  and  sentiments  of  the  people  was  all  the  more  effective  be 
cause  it  was  an  effluence  from  the  mind  of  a  statesman  who,  of  all 
other  statesmen  of  the  country,  was  deemed  the  most  practical,  and 
the  least  deluded  by  any  misguiding  lights  of  fancy  and  abstract 
speculation. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Webster's  impressive  idealization  of 
the  Constitution  gave  a  certain  narrowness  to  American  thinking  on 
constitutional  government  and  the  science  of  politics  and  legislation. 
Foreigners,  of  the  most  liberal  views,  could  not  sometimes  restrain  an 
expression  of  wonder,  when  they  found  that  our  most  intelligent  men, 
even  our  jurists  and  publicists,  hardly  condescended  to  notice  the 
eminent  European  thinkers  on  the  philosophy  of  government,  so 
absorbed  were  they  in  the  contemplation  of  the  perfection  of  their 
own.  When  the  great  civil  war  broke  out,  hundreds  of  thousands  of 


Ix  DANIEL  WEBSTER 

American  citizens  marched  to  the  battle-field  with  the  grand  passages 
of  Webster  glowing  in  their  hearts.  They  met  death  cheerfully  in 
the  cause  of  the  "  Constitution  and  Union,"  as  by  him  expounded  and 
idealized  ;  and  if  they  were  so  unfortunate  as  not  to  be  killed,  but 
to  be  taken  captive,  they  still  rotted  to  death  in  Southern  prisons, 
sustained  by  sentences  of  Webster's  speeches  which  they  had  de 
claimed  as  boys  in  their  country  schools.  Of  all  the  triumphs  of 
Webster  as  a  leader  of  public  opinion,  the  most  remarkable  was  his 
infusing  into  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the  free  States  the  belief 
that  the  Constitution  as  it  existed  in  his  time  was  an  organic  fact, 
springing  from  the  intelligence,  hearts,  and  wills  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  not,  as  it  really  was,  an  ingenious  mechanical  con 
trivance  of  wise  men,  to  which  the  people,  at  the  time,  gave  their 
assent. 

The  constitutions  of  the  separate  States  of  the  Union  were  doubt 
less  rooted  in  the  habits,  sentiments,  and  ideas  of  their  inhabitants. 
But  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  could  not  possess  this 
advantage,  however  felicitously  it  may  have  been  framed  for  the  pur 
pose  of  keeping,  for  a  considerable  period,  peace  between  the  different 
sections  of  the  country.  As  long,  therefore,  as  the  institution  of  negro 
slavery  lasted,  it  could  not  be  called  a  Constitution  of  States  organi 
cally  "  United  "  ;  for  it  lacked  the  principle  of  growth,  which  charac 
terizes  all  constitutions  of  government  which  are  really  adapted  to  the 
progressive  needs  of  a  people,  if  the  people  have  in  them  any  impulse 
which  stimulates  them  to  advance.  The  unwritten  constitution  of 
Great  Britain  has  this  advantage,  that  a  decree  of  Parliament  can  alter 
the  whole  representative  system,  annihilating  by  a  vote  of  the  two 
houses  all  laws  which  the  Parliament  had  enacted  in  former  years. 
In  Great  Britain,  therefore,  a  measure  which  any  Imperial  Parliament 
passes  becomes  at  once  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  though  it  may 
nullify  a  great  number  of  laws  which  previous  Parliaments  had  passed 
under  different  conditions  of  the  sentiment  of  the  nation.  Our  Con 
stitution,  on  the  other  hand,  provides  for  the  contingencies  of  growth 
in  the  public  sentiment  only  by  amendments  to  the  Constitution. 
These  amendments  require  more  than  a  majority  of  all  the  political 
forces  represented  in  Congress ;  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  foreseeing  that  a 
collision  must  eventually  occur  between  the  two  sections,  carried  with 
him,  not  only  the  South,  but  a  considerable  minority  of  the  North,  in 
resisting  any  attempt  to  limit  the  extension  of  slavery.  On  this  point 
the  passions  and  principles  of  the  people  of  the  slave-holding  and  the 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  non-slave-holding  States  came  into  violent 


AS  A  MASTER  OF  ENGLISH  STYLE.  Ixi 

opposition ;  and  there  was  no  possibility  that  any  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  could  be  ratified,  which  would  represent  either  the 
growth  of  the  Southern  people  in  their  ever-increasing  belief  that 
negro  slavery  was  not  only  a  good  in  itself,  but  a  good  which  ought  to 
be  extended,  or  the  growth  of  the  Northern  people  in  their  ever- 
increasing  hostility  both  to  slavery  and  its  extension.  Thus  two 
principles,  each  organic  in  its  nature,  and  demanding  indefinite  devel 
opment,  came  into  deadly  conflict  under  the  mechanical  forms  of  a 
Constitution  which  was  not  organic. 

A  considerable  portion  of  the  speeches  in  this  volume  is  devoted  to 
denunciations  of  violations  of  the  Constitution  perpetrated  by  Web 
ster's  political  opponents.  These  violations,  again,  would  seem  to 
prove  that  written  constitutions  follow  practically  the  same  law  of 
development  which  marks  the  progress  of  the  unwritten.  By  a 
strained  system  of  Congressional  interpretation,  the  Constitution 
has  been  repeatedly  compelled  to  yield  to  the  necessities  of  the 
party  dominant,  for  the  time,  in  the  government;  and  has,  if  we 
may  believe  Webster,  been  repeatedly  changed  without  being  con 
stitutionally  "  amended."  The  causes  which  led  to  the  most  terri 
ble  civil  war  recorded  in  history  were  silently  working  beneath 
the  forms  of  the  Constitution,  —  both  parties,  by  the  way,  appeal 
ing  to  its  provisions,  —  while  Webster  was  idealizing  it  as  the  utmost 
which  humanity  could  come  to  in  the  way  of  civil  government.  In 
1848,  when  nearly  all  Europe  was  in  insurrection  against  its  rulers, 
he  proudly  said  that  our  Constitution  promised  to  be  the  oldest,  as  well 
as  the  best,  in  civilized  states.  Meanwhile  the  institution  of  negro 
slavery  was  undermining  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Union.  The  moraj 
division  between  the  South  and  North  was  widening  into  a  division 
between  the  .religion  of  the  two  sections.  The  Southern  statesmen, 
economists,  jurists,  publicists,  and  ethical  writers  had  adapted  their 
opinions  to  the  demands  which  the  defenders  of  the  institution  of 
slavery  imposed  on  the  action  of  the  human  intellect  and  conscience ; 
but  it  was  rather  startling  to  discover  that  the  Christian  religion,  as 
taught  in  the  Southern  States,  was  a  religion  which  had  no  vital  con 
nection  with  the  Christianity  taught  in  the  Northern  States.  There 
is  nothing  more  astounding,  to  a  patient  explorer  of  the  causes  which 
led  to  the  final  explosion,  than  this  opposition  of  religions.  The 
mere  form  of  the  dogmas  common  to  the  religion  of  both  sections 
might  be  verbally  identical ;  but  a  volume  of  sermons  by  a  Southern 
doctor  of  divinity,  as  far  as  he  touched  on  the  matter  of  slavey,  was 
as  different  from  one  published  by  his  Northern  brother,  in  the  essen- 


Ixii  DANIEL   WEBSTER 

tial  moral  and  humane  elements  of  Christianity,  as  though  they  were 
divided  from  each  other  by  a  gulf  as  wide  as  that  which  yawns  between 
a  Druid  priest  and  a  Christian  clergyman. 

The  politicians  of  the  South,  whether  they  were  the  mouthpieces 
of  the  ideas  and  passions  of  their  constituents,  or  were,  as  Webster 
probably  thought,  more  or  less  responsible  for  their  foolishness  and 
bitterness,  were  ever  eager  to  precipitate  a  conflict,  which  Webster 
was  as  eager  to  prevent,  or  at  least  to  postpone.  It  was  fortunate  f or 
the  North,  that  the  inevitable  conflict  did  not  come  in  1850,  when  the 
free  States  were  unprepared  for  it.  Ten  years  of  discussion  and  prep 
aration  were  allowed ;  when  the  war  broke  out,  it  found  the  North  in 
a  position  to  meet  and  eventually  to  overcome  the  enemies  of  the 
Union ;  and  the  Constitution,  not  as  it  was,  but  as  it  is,  now  represents 
a  form  of  government  which  promises  to  be  permanent;  for  after 
passing  through  its  baptism  of  fire  and  blood,  the  Constitution  con 
tains  nothing  which  is  not  in  harmony  with  any  State  government 
founded  on  the  principle  of  equal  rights  which  it  guarantees,  and  is 
proof  against  all  attacks  but  those  which  may  proceed  from  the 
extremes  of  human  folly  and  wickedness.  But  that,  before  the  civil 
war,  it  was  preserved  so  long  under  conditions  which  constantly 
threatened  it  with  destruction,  is  due  in  a  considerable  degree  to  the 
circumstance  that  it  found  in  Daniel  Webster  its  poet  as  well  as  its 
u  expounder." 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said  that  the  style  of  Webster  is  pre-emi 
nently  distinguished  by  manliness.  Nothing  little,  weak,  whining,  or 
sentimental  can  be  detected  in  any  page  of  the  six  volumes  of  his  works. 
A  certain  strength  and  grandeur  of  personality  is  prominent  in  all  his 
speeches.  When  he  says  "  I,"  or  "  my,"  he  never  appears  to  indulge  in 
the  bravado  of  self-assertion,  because  the  words  are  felt  to  express  a  posi 
tive,  stalwart,  almost  colossal  manhood,  which  had  already  been  implied 
in  the  close-knit  sentences  in  which  he  embodied  his  statements  and 
arguments.  He  is  an  eminent  instance  of  the  power  which  character 
communicates  to  style.  Though  evidently  proud,  self-respecting,  and 
high-spirited,  he  is  ever  above  mere  vanity  and  egotism.  Whenever 
he  gives  emphasis  to  the  personal  pronoun  the  reader  feels  that  he  had 
as  much  earned  the  right  to  make  his  opinion  an  authority,  as  he  had 
earned  the  right  to  use  the  words  he  employs  to  express  his  ideas  and 
sentiments.  Thus,  in  the  celebrated  Smith  Will  trial,  his  antagonist, 
Mr.  Choate,  quoted  a  decision  of  Lord  Chancellor  Camden.  In  his 
reply,  Webster  argued  against  its  validity  as  though  it  were  merely  a 
proposition  laid  down  by  Mr.  Choate.  "  But  it  is  not  mine,  it  is  Lord 


AS   A  MASTER   OF  ENGLISH   STYLE.  Ixiii 

Camden's,"  was  the  instant  retort.  Webster  paused  for  half  a  minute, 
and  then,  with  his  eye  fixed  on  the  presiding  judge,  he  replied  :  "  Lord 
Camden  was  a  great  judge ;  he  is  respected  by  every  American,  for 
he  was  on  our  side  in  the  Revolution ;  but,  may  it  please  your  honor, 
/differ  from  my  Lord  Camden."  There  was  hardly  a  lawyer  in  the 
United  States  who  could  have  made  such  a  statement  without  exposing 
himself  to  ridicule ;  but  it  did  not  seem  at  all  ridiculous,  when  the 
44 1  "  stood  for  Daniel  Webster.  In  his  early  career  as  a  lawyer,  his 
mode  of  reasoning  was  such  as  to  make  him  practically  a  thirteenth 
juror  in  the  panel;  when  his  fame  was  fully  established,  he  contrived. 
in  some  mysterious  way,  to  seat  himself  by  the  side  of  the  judges  on 
the  bench,  and  appear  to  be  consulting  with  them  as  a  jurist,  rather 
than  addressing  them  as  an  advocate.  The  personality  of  the  man 
was  always  suppressed  until  there  seemed  to  be  need  of  asserting  it ; 
and  then  it  was  proudly  pushed  into  prominence,  though  rarely 
passing  beyond  the  limits  which  his  acknowledged  eminence  as  a 
statesman  and  lawyer  did  not  justify  him  in  asserting  it.  Among 
the  selections  in  the  present  volume  where  his  individuality  becomes 
somewhat  aggressive,  and  breaks  loose  from  the  restraints  ordinarily 
self-imposed  on  it,  may  be  mentioned  his  speech  on  his  Reception  at 
Boston  (1842),  his  Marshfield  Speech  (1848),  and  his  speech  at  his 
Reception  at  Buffalo  (1851).  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
course  of  argument  pursued  in  these,  they  are  at  least  thoroughly 
penetrated  with  a  manly  spirit,  —  a  manliness  somewhat  haughty  and 
defiant,  but  still  consciously  strong  in  its  power  to  return  blow  for 
blow,  from  whatever  quarter  the  assault  may  come.  ' 

But  the  real  intellectual  and  moral  manliness  of  Webster  underlies 
all  his  great  orations  and  speeches,  even  those  where  the  animating 
life  which  gives  them  the  power  to  persuade,  convince,  and  uplift  the 
reader's  mind,  seems  to  be  altogether  impersonal ;  and  this  plain  force 
of  manhood,  this  sturdy  grapple  with  every  question  that  comes  before 
his  understanding  for  settlement,  leads  him  contemptuously  to  reject 
all  the  meretricious  aids  and  ornaments  of  mere  rhetoric,  and  is 
prominent,  among  the  many  exceptional  qualities  of  his  large  nature, 
which  have  given  him  a  high  position  among  the  prose-writers  of  his 
country  as  a  consummate  master  of  English  style. 


:  VERSITY 

luto 


THE   GREAT   ORATIONS   AND    SPEECHES 


OF 


DANIEL    WEBSTER. 


THE    DARTMOUTH    COLLEGE    CASE. 

ARGUMENT   BEFORE   THE   SUPREME   COURT   OF   THE   UNITED    STATES,   AT 
WASHINGTON,    ON  THE  IOTH  OF  MARCH,  1818. 


[THE  action,  The  Trustees  of  Dartmouth 
College  v.  William  H.  Woodward,  was  com 
menced  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
Grafton  County,  State  of  New  Hampshire, 
February  term,  1817.  The  declaration  was 
trover  for  the  books  of  record,  original 
charter,  common  seal,  and  other  corporate 
property  of  the  College.  The  conversion 
was  alleged  to  have  been  made  on  the  7th 
day  of  October,  1816.  The  proper  pleas 
were  filed,  and  by  consent  the  cause  was 
carried  directly  to  the  Superior  Court  of 
New  Hampshire,  by  appeal,  and  entered  at 
the  May  term,  1817.  The  general  issue 
was  pleaded  by  the  defendant,  and  joined 
by  the  plaintiffs*'.  The  facts  in  the  case 
were  then  agreed  upon  by  the  parties,  and 
drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a  special  verdict, 
reciting  the  charter  of  the  College  and  the 
acts  of  the  legislature  of  the  State,  passed 
June  and  December,  1816,  by  which  the 
said  corporation  of  Dartmouth  College  was 
enlarged  and  improved,  and  the  said  charter 
amended. 

('/The  question  made  in  the  case  was, 
whether  those  acts  of  the  legislature  were 
valid  and  binding  upon  the  corporation, 
without  their  acceptance  or  assent,  and  not 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  If  so,  the  verdict  found  for  the 
defendants  •  otherwise,  it  found  for  the 
plaintiffs.  ' 

The  cause  was  continued  to  the  Sep 
tember  term  of  the  court  in  Rockingham 
County,  where  it  was  argued;  and  at  the 
November  term  of  the  same  year,  in  Grafton 
County,  the  opinion  of  the  court  was  deliv 
ered  by  Chief  Justice  Richardson,  in  favor 
of  the  validity  and  constitutionality  of  the 
acts  of  the  legislature;  and  judgment  was 
accordingly  entered  for  the  defendant  on 
the  special  verdict. 


Thereupon  a  writ  of  error  was  sued  out 
by  the  original  plaintiffs,  to  remove  the 
cause  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  ;  where  it  was  entered  at  the  term  of 
the  court  holden  at  Washington  on  the  first 
Monday  of  February,  1818. 

The  cause  came  on  for  argument  on  the 
10th  day  of  March,  1818,  before  all  the 
judges.  It  was  argued  by  Mr.  Webster  and 
Mr.  Hopkinson  for  the  plaintiffs  in  error, 
and  by  Mr.  Holmes  and  the  Attorney-Gen 
eral  (Wirt)  for  the  defendant  in  error. 

At  the  term  of  the  court  holden  in  Febru 
ary,  1819,  the  opinion  of  the  judges  was  de 
livered  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  declaring 
the  acts  of  the  legislature  unconstitutional 
and  invalid,  and  reversing  the  judgment  of 
the  State  Court.  The  court,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  Mr.  Justice  Duvall,  were  unani 
mous. 

The  following  was  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Welsister  for  the  plaintiffs  in  error.] 

THEsgeneral  questiprfLS,  whether  the 
acts  of  tnV4egisiatiire  of  New  Hamp 
shire  of  the  £7tk  of  June,  and  of  the 
18th  and  26th  of  December,  1816,  are 
valid  and  binding  on  the  plaintiffs,  with 
out  their  acceptance  or  assent. " 

The  charter  of  1769  created  and  estab 
lished  a  corporation,  to  consist  of  twelve 
persons,  and  no  more;  to  be  called  the 
*  *  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College. ' '  The 
preamble  to  the  charter  recites,  that  it  is 
granted  on  the  application  and  request 
of  the  Rev.  Eleazer  Wheelock:  That  Dr. 
Wheelock,  about  the  year  1754,  estab 
lished  a  charity  school,  at  his  own  ex- 


THE   DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


pense,  and  on  his  own  estate  and  plan 
tation  :  That  for  several  years,  through 
the  assistance  of  well-disposed  persons 
in  America,  granted  at  his  solicitation, 
he  had  clothed,  maintained,  and  edu 
cated  a  number  of  native  Indians,  and 
employed  them  afterwards  as  mission 
aries  and  schoolmasters  among  the  sav 
age  tribes  :  That,  his  design  promising 
to  be  useful,  he  had  constituted  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Whitaker  to  be  his  attorney,  with 
power  to  solicit  contributions,  in  Eng 
land,  for  the  further  extension  and  car 
rying  on  of  his  undertaking  ;  and  that 
he  had  requested  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth, 
Baron  Smith,  Mr.  Thornton,  and  other 
gentlemen,  to  receive  such  sums  as  might 
be  contributed,  in  England,  towards 
supporting  his  school,  and  to  be  trustees 
thereof,  for  his  charity ;  which  these 
persons  had  agreed  to  do  :  That  there 
upon  Dr.  Wheelock  had  executed  to 
them  a  deed  of  trust,  in  pursuance  of 
such  agreement  between  him  and  them, 
and,  for  divers  good  reasons,  had  re 
ferred  it  to  these  persons  to  determine 
the  place  in  which  the  school  should  be 
finally  established  :  And,  to  enable  them 
to  form  a  proper  decision  on  this  subject, 
had  laid  before  them  the  several  offers 
which  had  been  made  to  him  by  the  sev 
eral  governments  in  America,  in  order 
to  induce  him  to  settle  and  establish  his 
school  within  the  limits  of  such  govern 
ments  for  their  own  emolument,  and  the 
increase  of  learning  in  their  respective 
places,  as  well  as  for  the  furtherance  of 
his  general  original  design  :  And  inas 
much  as  a  number  of  the  proprietors  of 
lands  in  New  Hampshire,  animated  by 
the  example  of  the  Governor  himself 
and  others,  and  in  consideration  that, 
without  any  impediment  to  its  original 
design,  the  school  might  be  enlarged  and 
improved,  to  promote  learning  among 
the  English,  and  to  supply  ministers  to 
the  people  of  that  Province,  had  prom 
ised  large  tracts  of  land,  provided  the 
school  should  be  established  in  that 
Province,  the  persons  before  mentioned, 
having  weighed  the  reasons  in  favor  of 
the  several  places  proposed,  had  given 
the  preference  to  this  Province,  and  these 
offers  :  That  Dr.  Wheelock  therefore 


represented  the  necessity  of  a  legal  in 
corporation,  and  proposed  that  certain 
gentlemen  in  America,  whom  he  had 
already  named  and  appointed  in  his  will 
to  be  trustees  of  his  charity  after  his  de 
cease,  should  compose  the  corporation. 
Upon  this  recital,  and  in  consideration 
of  the  laudable  original  design  of  Dr. 
Wheelock,  and  willing  that  the  best 
means  of  education  be  established  in 
New  Hampshire,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Province,  the  king  granted  the  charter, 
by  the  advice  of  his  Provincial  Council. 
The  substance  of  the  facts  thus  re 
cited  is,  that  Dr.  Wheelock  had  founded 
a  charity,  on  funds  owned  and  procured 
by  himself;  that  he  was  at  that  time 
the  sole  dispenser  and  sole  administra 
tor,  as  well  as  the  legal  owner,  of  these 
funds  ;  that  he  had  made  his  will,  de 
vising  this  property  in  trust,  to  continue 
the  existence  and  uses  of  the  school,  and 
appointed  trustees  ;  that,  in  this  state  of 
things,  he  had  been  invited  to  fix  his 
school  permanently  in  New  Hampshire, 
and  to  extend  the  design  of  it  to  the 
education  of  the  youth  of  that  Province ; 
that  before  he  removed  his  school,  or  ac 
cepted  this  invitation,  which  his  friends 
in  England  had  advised  him  to  accept, 
he  applied  for  a  charter,  to  be  granted, 
not  to  whomsoever  the  king  or  govern 
ment  of  the  Province  should  please,  but 
to  such  persons  as  he  named  and  ap 
pointed,  namely,  the  persons  whom  he 
had  already  appointed  to  be  the  future 
trustees  of  his  charity  by  his  will. 

v'he  charter,  or  letters  patent,  then 
proceed  to  create  such  a  corporation,  and 
to  appoint  twelve  persons  to  constitute 
it,  by  the  name  of  the  u  Trustees  of 
Dartmouth  College  " ;  to  have  perpetual 
existence  as  such  corporation,  and  witli 
power  to  hold  and  dispose  of  lands  and 
goods,  for  the  use  of  the  college,  with 
all  the  ordinary  powers  of  corporations. 
They  are  in  their  discretion  to  apply  the 
funds  and  property  of  the  college  to  the 
support  of  the  president,  tutors,  minis 
ters,  and  other  officers  of  the  college, 
and  such  missionaries  and  schoolmasters 
as  they  may  see  fit  to  employ  among  the 
Indians.  There  are  to  be  twelve  trustees 
for  ever,  and  no  more;  and  they  are  to  have 


THE   DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


8 


the  right  of  filling  vacancies  occurring  in 
their  own  body.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Wheelock 
is  declared  to  be  the  founder  of  the  col 
lege,  and  is,  by  the  charter,  appointed 
first  president,  with  power  to  appoint  a 
successor  by  his  last  will.  All  proper 
powers  of  government,  superintendence, 
and  visitation  are  vested  in  the  trustees. 
They  are  to  appoint  and  remove  all 
officers  at  their  discretion;  to  fix  their 
salaries,  and  assign  their  duties;  and  to 
make  all  ordinances,  orders,  and  laws 
for  the  government  of  the  students.  To 
the  end  that  the  persons  who  had  acted 
as  depositaries  of  the  contributions  in 
England,  and  who  had  also  been  con 
tributors  themselves,  might  be  satisfied 
of  the  good  use  of  their  contributions, 
the  president  was  annually,  or  when  re 
quired,  to  transmit  to  them  an  account 
of  the  progress  of  the  institution  and  the 
disbursements  of  its  funds,  so  long  as 
they  should  continue  to  act  in  that  trust. 
These  letters  patent  are  to  be  good  and 
effectual,  in  law,  against  the  king,  his 
heirs  and  successors  for  ever,  without 
further  grant  or  confirmation;  and  the 
trustees  are  to  hold  all  and  singular 
these  privileges,  advantages,  liberties, 
and  immunities  to  them  and  to  their 
successors  for  ever. 

No  funds  are  given  to  the  college  by 
this  charter.  A  corporate  existence  and 
capacity  are  given  to  the  trustees,  with 
the  privileges  and  immunities  which 
have  been  mentioned,  to  enable  the 
founder  and  his  associates  the  better  to 
manage  the  funds  which  they  themselves 
had  contributed,  and  such  others  as  they 
might  afterwards  obtain. 

After  the  institution  thus  created  and 
constituted  had  existed,  uninterruptedly 
and  usefully,  nearly  fifty  years,  the  legis 
lature  of  New  Hampshire  passed  the 
acts  in  question. 

V  The  first  act  makes  the  twelve  trustees 
under  the  charter,  and  nine  other  indi 
viduals,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor 
and  Council,  a  corporation,  by  a  new 
name ;  and  to  this  new  corporation  trans 
fers  all  the  property,  rights,  powers,  liber 
ties,  and  privileges  of  the  old  corporation; 
with  further  power  to  establish  new 
colleges  and  an  institute,  and  to  apply 


all  or  any  part  of  the  funds  to  these 
purposes;  subject  to  the  power  and  con 
trol  of  a  board  of  twenty-five  overseers, 
to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  and 
Council. 

*?<rhe  second  act  makes  further  pro 
visions  for  executing  the  objects  of  the 
first,  and  the  last  act  authorizes  the  de 
fendant,  the  treasurer  of  the  plaintiffs,  to 
retain  and  hold  their  property,  against 
their  will. 

If  these  acts  are  valid,  the  old  corpora 
tion  is  abolished,  and  a  new  one  created. 
The  first  act  does,  in  fact,  if  it  can  have 
any  effect,  create  a  new  corporation,  and 
transfer  to  it  all  the  property  and  fran 
chises  of  the  old.  The  two  corporations 
are  not  the  same  in  anything  which  es 
sentially  belongs  to  the  existence  of  a 
corporation.  They  have  different  names, 
and  different  powers,  rights,  and  duties. 
Their  organization  is  wholly  different. 
The  powers  of  the  corporation  are  not 
vested  in  the  same,  or  similar  hands. 
In  one,  the  trustees  are  twelve,  and  no 
more.  In  the  other,  they  are  twenty- 
one.  In  one,  the  power  is  in  a  single 
board.  In  the  other,  it  is  divided  be 
tween  two  boards.  Although  the  act 
professes  to  include  the  old  trustees  in 
the  new  corporation,  yet  that  was  with 
out  their  assent,  and  against  their  re 
monstrance  ;  and  no  person  can  be  com 
pelled  to  be  a  member  of  such  a  corpora 
tion  against  his  will.  It  was  neither 
expected  nor  intended  that  they  should 
be  members  of  the  new  corporation. 
The  act  itself  treats  the  old  corporation 
as  at  an  end,  and,  going  on  the  ground 
that  all  its  functions  have  ceased,  it  pro 
vides  for  the  first  meeting  and  organiza 
tion  of  the  new  corporation.  It  express 
ly  provides,  also,  that  the  new  corpora 
tion  shall  have  and  hold  all  the  property 
of  the  old;  a  provision  which  would  be 
quite  unnecessary  upon  any  other  ground, 
than  that  the  old  corporation  was  dis 
solved.  But  if  it  could  be  contended 
that  the  effect  of  these  acts  was  not  en 
tirely  to  abolish  the  old  corporation,  yet 
it  is  manifest  that  they  impair  and  in 
vade  the  rights,  property,  and  powers  of 
the  trustees  under  the  charter,  as  a  cor 
poration,  and  the  legal  rights,  privileges, 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


and  immunities  which  belong  to  them, 
as  individual  members  of  the  corporation. 
The  twelve  trustees  were  the  sole  legal 
owners  of  all  the  property  acquired  un 
der  the  charter.  By  the  acts,  others  are 
admitted,  against  their  will,  to  be  joint 
owners.  The  twelve  individuals  who  are 
trustees  were  possessed  of  all  the  fran 


chises  and  immunities  conferred  by  the~~  V  The  president,  one  of  the  old  trustees, 


charter.  By  the  acts,  nine  other  trustees 
and  twenty- five  overseers  are  admitted, 
against  their  will,  to  divide  these  fran 
chises  and  immunities  with  them. 

If,  either  as  a  corporation  or  as  indi 
viduals,  they  have  any  legal  rights,  this 
forcible  intrusion  of  others  violates  those 
rights,  as  manifestly  as  an  entire  and 
complete  ouster  and  dispossession.  These 
acts  alter  the  whole  constitution  of  the 
corporation.  They  affect  the  rights  of 
the  whole  body  as  a  corporation,  and  the 
rights  of  the  individuals  who  compose 
it.  They  revoke  corporate  powers  and 
franchises.  They  alienate  and  transfer 
the  property  of  the  college  to  others.  By 
the  charter,  the  trustees  had  a  right  to 
fill  vacancies  in  their  own  number.  This 
is  now  taken  away.  They  were  to  con 
sist  of  twelve,  and,  by  express  provision, 
of  no  more.  This  is  altered.  They  and 
their  successors,  appointed  by  them 
selves,  were  for  ever  to  hold  the  prop 
erty.  The  legislature  has  found  suc 
cessors  for  them,  before  their  seats  are 
vacant.  The  powers  and  privileges 
which  the  twelve  were  to  exercise  exclu 
sively,  are  now  to  be  exercised  by  others. 
By  one  of  the  acts,  they  are  subjected  to 
heavy  penalties  if  they  exercise  their 
offices,  or  any  of  those  powers  and  privi 
leges  granted  them  by  charter,  and  which 
they  had  exercised  for  fifty  years.  They 
are  to  be  punished  for  not  accepting  the 
new  grant  and  taking  its  benefits.  This, 
it  must  be  confessed,  is  rather  a  sum 
mary  mode  of  settling  a  question  of  con 
stitutional  right.  Not  only  are  new 
trustees  forced  into  the  corporation,  but 
new  trusts  and  uses  are  created.  The 
college  is  turned  into  a  university.  Power 
is  given  to  create  new  colleges,  and,  to 
authorize  any  diversion  of  the  funds 
which  may  be  agreeable  to  the  new 
boards,  sufficient  latitude  is  given  by 


the  undefined  power  of  establishing  an 
institute.  To  these  new  colleges,  and 
this  institute,  the  funds  contributed  by 
the  founder,  Dr.  Wheelock,  and  by  the 
original  donors,  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth 
and  others,  are  to  be  applied,  in  plain 
and  manifest  disregard  of  the  uses  to 
which  they  were  given. 


had  a  right  to  his  office,  salary,  and 
emoluments,  subject  to  the  twelve  trus 
tees  alone.  His  title  to  these  is  now 
changed,  and  he  is  made  accountable  to 
new  masters.  So  also  all  the  professors 
and  tutors.  If  the  legislature  can  at 
pleasure  make  these  alterations  and 
changes  in  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
the  plaintiffs,  it  may,  with  equal  pro 
priety,  abolish  these  rights  and  privi 
leges  altogether.  The  same  power  which 
can  do  any  part  of  this  work  can  accom 
plish  the  whole.  And,  indeed,  the  ar 
gument  on  which  these  acts  have  been 
hitherto  defended  goes  altogether  on  the 
ground,  that  this  is  such  a  corporation 
as  the  legislature  may  abolish  at  pleas 
ure  ;  and  that  its  members  have  no  rights, 
liberties,  franchises,  property,  or  privileges, 
which  the  legislature  may  not  revoke, 
annul,  alienate,  or  transfer  to  others, 
whenever  it  sees  fit. 

It  will  be  contended  by  the  plaintiffs, 
that  these  acts  are  not  valid  and  binding 
on  them  without  their  assent,  — 

1.  Because  they  are  against  common 
right,    and    the    Constitution    of    New 
Hampshire. 

2.  Because  they  are  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  aware  of  the  limits  which  bound 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  this  case, 
and  that  on  this  record  nothing  can  be 
decided  but  the  single  question,  whether 
these  acts  are  repugnant  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  Yet  it  may 
assist  in  forming  an  opinion  of  their 
true  nature  and  character  to  compare 
them  with  those  fundamental  principles 
introduced  into  the  State  governments 
for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  exercise 
of  the  legislative  power,  and  which  the 
Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  ex 
presses  with  great  fulness  and  accu 
racy. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


It  is  not  too  much  to  assert,  that  the 
legislature  of  New  Hampshire  would  not 
have  been  competent  to  pass  the  acts  in 
question,  and  to  make  them  binding  on 
the  plaintiffs  without  their  assent,  even 
if  there  had  been,  in  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire,  or  of  the  United  States, 
no  special  restriction  on  their  power,  be 
cause  these  acts  are  not  the  exercise  of  a 
power  properly  legislative.1  Their  effect 
and  object  are  to  take  away,  from  one, 
rights,  property,  and  franchises,  and  to 
grant  them  to  another.  This  is  not  the 
exercise  of  a  legislative  power.  To  jus 
tify  the  taking  away  of  vested  rights 
there  must  be  a  forfeiture,  to  adjudge 
upon  and  declare  which  is  the  proper 
province  of  the  judiciary.  Attainder  and 
confiscation  are  acts  of  sovereign  power, 
not  acts  of  legislation.  The  British  Par 
liament,  among  other  unlimited  pow 
ers,  claims  that  of  altering  and  vacating 
charters ;  not  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legis 
lation,  but  of  uncontrolled  authority. 
It  is  theoretically  omnipotent.  Yet,  in 
modern  times,  it  has  very  rarely  at 
tempted  the  exercise  of  this  power.  In 
a  celebrated  instance,  those  who  asserted 
this  power  in  Parliament  vindicated  its 
exercise  only  in  a  case  in  which  it  could 
be  shown,  1st.  That  the  charter  in  ques 
tion  was  a  charter  of  political  power; 
2d.  That  there  was  a  great  and  over 
ruling  state  necessity,  justifying  the  vio 
lation  of  the  charter;  3d.  That  the  char 
ter  had  been  abused  and  justly  forfeited.2 
The  bill  affecting  this  charter  did  not 
pass.  Its  history  is  well  known.  The 
act  which  afterwards  did  pass,  passed 
ii'ith  the  assent  of  the  corporation.  Even 
in  the  worst  times,  this  power  of  Parlia 
ment  to  repeal  and  rescind  charters  has 
not  often  been  exercised.  The  illegal 
proceedings  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the 
Second  were  under  color  of  law.  Judg 
ments  of  forfeiture  were  obtained  in  the 
courts.  Such  was  the  case  of  the  quo 
warranto  against  the  city  of  London,  and 

1  Calder  et  ux.  v.  Bull,  3  Dallas,  386. 

2  Annual  Register,  1784,  p.  160;  Parl.  Reg. 
1783;  Mr.  Burke's  Speech  on  Mr.  Fox's  East 
India  Bill,  Burke's  Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  414,  417, 
467,  468,  486. 

3  1  Black.  472,  473. 


the  proceedings  by  which  the  charter  of 
Massachusetts  was  vacated. 
>The  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  has 
no  more  power  over  the  rights  of  the 
plaintiffs  than  existed  somewhere,  in 
some  department  of  government,  before 
the  Revolution.  The  British  Parliament 
could  not  have  annulled  or  revoked  this 
grant  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation. 
If  it  had  done  it  at  all,  it  could  only 
have  been  in  virtue  of  that  sovereign 
power,  called  omnipotent,  which  does 
not  belong  to  any  legislature  in  the 
United  States.  The  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  has  the  same  power  over 
this  charter  which  belonged  to  the  king 
who  granted  it,  and  no  more.  By  the 
law  of  England,  the  power  to  create  cor 
porations  is  a  part  of  the  royal  preroga 
tive.8  By  the  Revolution,  this  power 
may  be  considered  as  having  devolved 
on  the  legislature  of  the  State,  and  it 
has  accordingly  been  exercised  by  the 
legislature.  But  the  king  cannot  abol 
ish  a  corporation,  or  new-model  it,  or 
alter  its  powers,  without  its  assent.  This 
is  the  acknowledged  and  well-known 
doctrine  of  the  common  law.  "What 
ever  might  have  been  the  notion  in  for 
mer  times,"  says  Lord  Mansfield,  "it  is 
most  certain  now  that  the  corporations 
of  the  universities  are  lay  corporations ; 
and  that  the  crown  cannot  take  away 
from  them  any  rights  that  have  been 
formerly  subsisting  in  them  under  old 
charters  or  prescriptive  usage. ' ' 4  After 
forfeiture  duly  found,  the  king  may  re- 
grant  the  franchises  ;  but  a  grant  of 
franchises  already  granted,  and  of  which 
no  forfeiture  has  been  found,  is  void. 

Corporate  franchises  can  only  be  for 
feited  by  trial  and  judgment.5  In  case 
of  a  new  charter  or  grant  to  an  existing 
corporation,  it  may  accept  or  reject  it  as 
it  pleases.6  It  may  accept  such  part  of 
the  grant  as  it  chooses,  and  reject  the 
rest.7  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  a 
charter  cannot  be  forced  upon  any  body. 

4  3  Burr.  1656. 

5  King  v.  Pasmore,  3  Term  Rep.  244. 

6  King  v.  Vice-Chancellor  of  Cambridge,  3 
Burr.  1656 ;  3  Term  Rep.  240,  —  Lord  Kenyon. 

7  3  Burr.  1661,   and  King  v.  Pasmore,  ubi 
supra. 


6 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


No  one  can  be  compelled  to  accept  a 
grant ;  and  without  acceptance  the  grant 
is  necessarily  void.1  It  cannot  be  pre 
tended  that  the  legislature,  as  successor 
to  the  king  in  this  part  of  his  preroga 
tive,  has  any  power  to  revoke,  vacate, 
or  alter  this  charter.  If,  therefore,  the 
legislature  has  not  this  power  by  any 
specific  grant  contained  in  the  Constitu 
tion;  nor  as  included  in  its  ordinary 
legislative  powers ;  nor  by  reason  of  its 
succession  to  the  prerogatives  of  the 
crown  in  this  particular,  on  what  ground 
would  the  authority  to  pass  these  acts 
rest,  even  if  there  were  no  prohibitory 
clauses  in  the  Constitution  and  the  Bill 
of  Rights  ? 

But  there  are  prohibitions  in  the  Con 
stitution  and  Bill  of  Rights  of  New 
Hampshire,  introduced  for  the  purpose 
of  limiting  the  legislative  power  and  pro 
tecting  the  rights  and  property  of  the 
citizens.  One  prohibition  is,  "that  no 
person  shall  be  deprived  of  his  property, 
immunities,  or  privileges,  put  out  of  the 
protection  of  the  law,  or  deprivt  d  of 
his  life,  liberty,  or  estate,  but  by  judg 
ment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the 
land." 

In  the  opinion,  however,  which  was 
given  in  the  court  below,  it  is  denied 
that  the  trustees  under  the.  charter  had 
any  property,  immunity,  liberty,  or 
privilege  in  this  corporation,  within  the 
meaning  of  this  prohibition  in  the  Bill 
of  Rights.  It  is  said  that  it  is  a  public 
corporation  and  public  property;  that 
the  trustees  have  no  greater  interest  in 
it  than  any  other  individuals ;  that  it  is 
not  private  property,  which  they  can  sell 
or  transmit  to  their  heirs,  and  that  there 
fore  they  have  no  interest  in  it;  that 
their  office  is  a  public  trust,  like  that  of 
the  Governor  or  a  judge,  and  that  they 
have  no  more  concern  in  the  property 
of  the  college  than  the  Governor  in  the 
property  of  the  State,  or  than  the  judges 
in  the  fines  which  they  impose  on  the 
culprits  at  their  bar ;  that  it  is  nothing 
to  them  whether  their  powers  shall  be 
extended  or  lessened,  any  more  than  it 
is  to  their  honors  whether  their  jurisdic- 

1  Ellis  v.  Marshall,  2  Mass.  Rep.  277 ;  1  Kyd 
on  Corporations,  65,  66. 


tion  shall  be  enlarged  or  diminished.  It 
is  necessary,  therefore,  to  inquire  into 
the  true  nature  and  character  of  the  cor 
poration  which  was  created  by  the  char 
ter  of  1769. 

There  are  divers  sorts  of  corporations ; 
and  it  may  be  safely  admitted  that  the 
legislature  has  more  power  over  some 
than  others.2  Some  corporations  are  for 
government  and  political  arrangement; 
such,  for  example,  as  cities,  counties, 
and  towns  in  New  England.  These 
may  be  changed  and  modified  as  public 
convenience  may  require,  due  regard  be 
ing  always  had  to  the  rights  of  property. 
Of  such  corporations,  all  who  live  with 
in  the  limits  are  of  course  obliged  to  be 
members,  and  to  submit  to  the  duties 
which  the  law  imposes  on  them  as  such. 
Other  civil  corporations  are  for  the  ad 
vancement  of  trade  and  business,  such 
as  banks,  insurance  companies,  and  the 
like.  These  are  created,  not  by  general 
law,  but  usually  by  grant.  Their  con 
stitution  is  special.  It  is  such  as  the 
legislature  sees  fit  to  give,  and  the  gran 
tees  to  accept. 

The  corporation  in  question  is  not  a 
civil,  although  it  is  a  lay  corporation. 
It  is  an  eleemosynary  corporation.  It  is 
a  private  charity,  originally  founded  and 
endowed  by  an  individual,  with  a  char 
ter  obtained  for  it  at  his  request,  for  the 
better  administration  of  his  charity. 
"  The  eleemosynary  sort  of  corporations 
are  such  as  are  constituted  for  the  per 
petual  distributions  of  the  free  alms  or 
bounty  of  the  founder  of  them,  to  such 
persons  as  he  has  directed.  Of  this  are 
all  hospitals  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
poor,  sick,  and  impotent;  and  all  col 
leges  both  in  our  universities  and  out  of 
them. ' '  8  Eleemosynary  corporations  are 
for  the  management  of  private  property, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  donors. 
They  are  private  corporations.  A  col 
lege  is  as  much  a  private  corporation  as 
a  hospital;  especially  a  college  founded, 
as  this  was,  by  private  bounty.  A  col 
lege  is  a  charity.  "  The  establishment 
of  learning,"  says  Lord  Hardwicke,  "  is 
a  charity,  and  so  considered  in  the  stat- 

2  1  Wooddeson,  474 ;  1  Black.  467. 

3  1  Black.  471. 


THE   DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


ute  of  Elizabeth.  A  devise  to  a  college, 
for  their  benefit,  is  a  laudable  charity, 
and  deserves  encouragement. ' ' l 

The  legal  signification  of  a  charity  is 
derived  chiefly  from  the  statute  43  Eliz. 
ch.  4.  "  Those  purposes,"  says  Sir  Wil 
liam  Grant,  "  are  considered  charitable 
which  that  statute  enumerates."  2  Col 
leges  are  enumerated  as  charities  in 
that  statute.  The  government,  in  these 
cases,  lends  its  aid  to  perpetuate  the  be 
neficent  intention  of  the  donor,  by  grant 
ing  a  charter  under  which  his  private 
charity  shall  continue  to  be  dispensed 
after  his  death.  This  is  done  either  by 
incorporating  the  objects  of  the  charity, 
as,  for  instance,  the  scholars  in  a  college 
or  the  poor  in  a  hospital,  or  by  incorpo 
rating  those  who  are  to  be  governors  or 
trustees  of  the  charity.8  In  cases  of  the 
first  sort,  the  founder  is,  by  the  common 
law,  visitor.  In  early  times  it  became 
a  maxim,  that  he  who  gave  the  property 
might  regulate  it  in  future.  "  Cujus  est 
dare,  ejus  est  disponere."  This  right  of 
visitation  descended  from  the  founder  to 
his  heir  as  a  right  of  property,  and  pre 
cisely  as  his  other  property  went  to  his 
heir ;  and  in  default  of  heirs  it  went  to 
the  king,  as  all  other  property  goes  to 
the  king  for  the  want  of  heirs.  The 
right  of  visitation  arises  from  the  prop 
erty.  It  grows  out  of  the  endowment. 
The  founder  may,  if  he  please,  part  with 
it  at  the  time  when  he  establishes  the 
charity,  and  may  vest  it  in  others. 
Therefore,  if  he  chooses  that  governors, 
trustees,  or  overseers  should  be  appointed 
in  the  charter,  he  may  cause  it  to  be 
done,  and  his  power  of  visitation  may  be 
transferred  to  them,  instead  of  descend 
ing  to  his  heirs.  The  persons  thus  as 
signed  or  appointed  by  the  founder  will 
be  visitors,  with  all  the  powers  of  the 
founder,  in  exclusion  of  his  heir.4  The 
right  of  visitation,  then,  accrues  to  them, 
as  a  matter  of  property,  by  the  gift, 
transfer,  or  appointment  of  the  founder. 
This  is  a  private  right,  which  they  can 
assert  in  all  legal  modes,  and  in  which 
they  have  the  same  protection  of  the  law 

i  1  Ves.  537.  2  9  Ves.  Jun.  405. 

s  1  Wood.  474.  *  1  Black.  471. 

5  2  Term  Rep.  350,  351. 


as  in  all  other  rights.  As  visitors  they 
may  make  rules,  ordinances,  and  stat 
utes,  and  alter  and  repeal  them,  as  far 
as  permitted  so  to  do  by  the  charter.5 
Although  the  charter  proceeds  from  the 
crown  or  the  government,  it  is  considered 
as  the  will  of  the  donor.  It  is  obtained 
at  his  request.  He  imposes  it  as  the 
rule  which  is  to  prevail  in  the  dispensa 
tion  of  his  bounty  in  all  future  times. 
The  king  or  government  which  grants 
the  charter  is  not  thereby  the  founder, 
but  he  who  furnishes  the  funds.  The 
gift  of  the  revenues  is  the  founda 
tion.6 

The  leading  case  on  this  subject  is 
Phillips  v.  Bury."1  This  was  an  eject 
ment  brought  to  recover  the  rectory- 
house,  &c.  of  Exeter  College  in  Oxford. 
The  question  was  whether  the  plaintiff 
or  defendant  was  legal  rector.  Exeter 
College  was  founded  by  an  individual, 
and  incorporated  by  a  charter  granted 
by  Queen  Elizabeth.  The  controversy 
turned  upon  the  power  of  the  visitor, 
and,  in  the  discussion  of  the  cause,  the 
nature  of  college  charters  and  corpora 
tions  was  very  fully  considered.  Lord 
Holt's  judgment,  copied  from  his  own 
manuscript,  is  found  in  2  Term  Reports, 
346.  The  following  is  an  extract :  — 

"That  we  may  the  better  apprehend 
the  nature  of  a  visitor,  we  are  to  consider 
that  there  are  in  law  two  sorts  of  corpora 
tions  aggregate ;  such  as  are  for  public  gov 
ernment,  and  such  as  are  for  private  charity. 
Those  that  are  for  the  public  government 
of  a  town,  city,  mystery,  or  the  like,  being 
for  public  advantage,  are  to  be  governed 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  If  they 
make  any  particular  private  laws  and  con 
stitutions,  the  validity  and  justice  of  them 
is  exarainable  in  the  king's  courts.  Of  these 
there  are  no  particular  private  founders, 
and  consequently  no  particular  visitor ; 
there  are  no  patrons  of  these ;  therefore,  if 
no  provision  be  in  the  charter  how  the  suc 
cession  shall  continue,  the  law  supplieth  the 
defect  of  that  constitution,  and  saith  it  shall 
be  by  election ;  as  mayor,  aldermen,  com 
mon  council,  and  the  like.  But  private  and 
particular  corporations  for  charity,  founded 
and  endowed  by  private  persons,  are  sub 
ject  to  the  private  government  of  those 
who  erect  them ;  and  therefore,  if  there  be 

6  1  Black.  480. 

7  1  Lord  Raymond,  5 ;    Comb.  265 ;    Holt, 
715;  1  Shower,  360;  4  Mod.  106;  Skinn.  447. 


8 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


no  visitor  appointed  by  the  founder,  the  law 
appoints  the  founder  and  his  heirs  to  be 
visitors,  who  are  to  act  and  proceed  accord 
ing  to  the  particular  laws  and  constitutions 
assigned  them  by  the  founder.  It  is  now 
admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  founder  is 
patron,  and.  as  founder,  is  visitor,  if  no  par 
ticular  visitor  be  assigned  ;  so  that  patron 
age  and  visitation  are  necessary  consequents 
one  upon  another.  For  this  visitatorial 
power  was  not  introduced  by  any  canons  or 
constitutions  ecclesiastical  (as  was  said  by 
a  learned  gentleman  whom  I  have  in  my 
eye,  in  his  argument  of  this  case) ;  it  is  an 
appointment  of  law.  It  ariseth  from  the 
property  which  the  founder  had  in  the 
lands  assigned  to  support  the  charity ;  and 
as  he  is  the  author  of  the  charity,  the  law 
gives  him  and  his  heirs  a  visitatorial  power, 
that  is,  an  authority  to  inspect  the  actions 
and  regulate  the  behavior  of  the  members 
that  partake  of  the  charity.  For  it  is  lit 
the  members  that  are  endowed,  and  that 
have  the  charity  bestowed  upon  them, 
should  not  be  left  to  themselves,  but  pursue 
the  intent  and  design  of  him  that  bestowed 
it  upon  them.  Now,  indeed,  where  the  poor, 
or  those  that  receive  the  charity,  are  not  incorpo 
rated,  but  there  are  certain  trustees  who  dispose 
of  the  chariti/,  there  is  no  visitor,  because  the  in 
terest  of  the  revenue  is  not  vested  in  the  poor  that 
have  the  benefit  of  the  chanty,  but  they  are  sub 
ject  to  the  orders  and  directions  of  the  trustees. 
But  where  they  who  are  to  enjoy  the  ben 
efit  of  the  charity  are  incorporated,  there 
to  prevent  all  perverting  of  the  charity,  or 
to  compose  differences  that  may  happen 
among  them,  there  is  by  law  a  visitatorial 
power ;  and  it  being  a  creature  of  the 
founder's  own,  it  is  reason  that  he  and  his 
heirs  should  have  that  power,  unless  by  the 
founder  it  is  vested  in  some  other.  Now 
there  is  no  manner  of  difference  between  a 
college  and  a  hospital,  except  only  in  de 
gree.  A  hospital  is  for  those  that  are  poor, 
and  mean,  and  low,  and  sickly ;  a  college  is 
for  another  sort  of  indigent  persons  ;  but  it 
hath  another  intent,  to  study  in  and  breed 
up  persons  in  the  world  that  have  no  other 
wise  to  live ;  but  still  it  is  as  much  within 
the  reasons  as  hospitals.  And  if  in  a  hos 
pital  the  master  and  poor  are  incorporated, 
it  is  a  college  having  a  common  seal  to  act 
by,  although  it  hath  not  the  name  of  a  col 
lege  (which  always  supposeth  a  corpora 
tion),  because  it  is  of  an  inferior  degree; 
and  in  the  one  case  and  in  the  other  there 
must  be  a  visitor,  either  the  founder  and  his 
heirs  or  one  appointed  by  him ;  and  both  are 
eleemosynary." 

Lord  Holt  concludes  his  whole  argu 
ment  by  again  repeating,  that  that  col 
lege  was  a  private  corporation,  and  that 
the  founder  had  a  right  to  appoint  a  vis- 
1  1  Lord  Raymond,  9. 


itor,  and  to  give  him  such  power  as  he 
saw  fit.1 

The  learned  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  ar 
gument  in  the  same  cause,  as  a  member 
of  the  Hbuse  of  Lords,  when  it  was 
there  heard,  exhibits  very  clearly  the 
nature  of  colleges  and  similar  corpora 
tions.  It  is  to  the  following  effect. 
"That  this  absolute  and  conclusive 
power  of  visitors  is  no  more  than  the 
law  hath  appointed  in  other  cases,  upon 
commissions  of  charitable  uses :  that  the 
common  law,  and  not  any  ecclesiastical 
canons,  do  place  the  power  of  visitation 
in  the  founder  and  his  heirs,  unless  lie 
settle  it  upon  others:  that  although  cor 
porations  for  public  government  be  sub 
ject  to  the  courts  of  Westminster  Hall, 
which  have  no  particular  or  special 
visitors,  yet  corporations  for  charity, 
founded  and  endowed  by  private  per 
sons,  are  subject  to  the  rule  and  govern 
ment  of  those  that  erect  them;  but 
where  the  persons  to  whom  the  charity 
is  given  are  not  incorporated,  there  is  no 
such  visitatorial  power,  because  the  in 
terest  of  the  revenue  is  not  invested  in 
them;  but  where  they  are,  the  right  of 
visitation  ariseth  from  the  foundation, 
and  the  founder  may  convey  it  to  whom 
and  in  what  manner  he  pleases ;  and  the 
visitor  acts  as  founder,  and  by  the  same 
authority  ivhich  he  had,  and  consequently 
is  no  more  accountable  than  he  had  been: 
that  the  king  by  his  charter  can  make  a 
society  to  be  incorporated  so  as  to  have 
the  rights  belonging  to  persons,  as  to 
legal  capacities :  that  colleges,  although 
founded  by  private  persons,  are  yet  in 
corporated  by  the  king's  charter ;  but  al 
though  the  kings  by  their  charter  made 
the  colleges  to  be  such  in  law,  that  is,  to 
be  legal  corporations,  yet  they  left  to  the 
particular  founders  authority  to  appoint 
what  statutes  they  thought  fit  for  the 
regulation  of  them.  And  not  only  the 
statutes,  but  the  appointment  of  visitors, 
was  left  to  them,  and  the  manner  of  gov 
ernment,  and  the  several  conditions  on 
which  any  persons  were  to  be  made  or 
continue  partakers  of  their  bounty."  2 

These  opinions  received  the  sanction 

2  1  Bum's  Eccles.  Law,  443,  Appendix, 
No.  3. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


9 


of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  they  seem 
to  be  settled  and  undoubted  law.  Where 
there  is  a  charter,  vesting  proper  powers 
in  trustees,  or  governors,  they  are  visit 
ors  ;  and  there  is  no  control  in  any  body 
else;  except  only  that  the  courts  of 
equity  or  of  law  will  interfere  so  far  as  to 
preserve  the  revenues  and  prevent  the 
perversion  of  the  funds,  and  to  keep  the 
visitors  within  their  prescribed  bounds. 
' '  If  there  be  a  charter  with  proper 
powers,  the  charity  must  be  regulated 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  charter. 
There  is  no  ground  for  the  controlling 
interposition  of  the  courts  of  chancery. 
The  interposition  of  the  courts,  there 
fore,  in  those  instances  in  which  the 
charities  were  founded  on  charters  or  by 
act  of  Parliament,  and  a  visitor  or  gov 
ernor  and  trustees  appointed,  must  be 
referred  to  the  general  jurisdiction  of 
the  courts  in  all  cases  in  which  a  trust 
conferred  appears  to  have  been  abused, 
and  not  to  an  original  right  to  direct  the 
management  of  the  charity,  or  the  con 
duct  of  the  governors  or  trustees."  l 
"  The  original  of  all  visitatorial  power  is 
the  property  of  the  donor,  and  the  power 
every  one  has  to  dispose,  direct,  and  reg 
ulate  his  own  property;  like  the  case  of 
patronage;  cujus  est  dare,  &c.  There 
fore,  if  either  the  crown  or  the  subject 
creates  an  eleemosynary  foundation,  and 
vests  the  charity  in  the  persons  who  are 
to  receive  the  benefit  of  it,  since  a  con 
test  might  arise  about  the  government 
of  it,  the  law  allows  the  founder  or  his 
heirs,  or  the  person  specially  appointed 
by  him  to  be  visitor,  to  determine  con 
cerning  his  own  creature.  If  the  charity 
is  not  vested  in  the  persons  who  are  to 
partake,  but  in  trustees  for  their  benefit, 
no  visitor  can  arise  by  implication,  but 
the  trustees  have  that  power."  2 

' '  There  is  nothing  better  established, ' ' 
says  Lord  Commissioner  Eyre,  "than 
that  this  court  does  not  entertain  a 
general  jurisdiction,  or  regulate  and 

1  2  Fonb.  205,  206. 

2  Green  v.  Rutherforth,  1  Ves.  472,  per  Lord 
Hardwicke. 

3  Attorney-General  v.  Foundling  Hospital, 
2  Yes.  Jun.  47.     See  also  2  Kyd  on  Corpora 
tions,  195 ;  Cooper's  Equity  Pleading,  292. 


control  charities  established  by  charter. 
There  the  establishment  is  fixed  and 
determined ;  and  the  court  has  no  power 
to  vary  it.  If  the  governors  established 
for  the  regulation  of  it  are  not  those 
who  have  the  management  of  the  rev 
enue,  this  court  has  no  jurisdiction, 
and  if  it  is  ever  so  much  abused,  as  far 
as  it  respects  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
court  it  is  without  remedy;  but  if  those 
established  as  governors  have  also  the 
management  of  the  revenues,  this  court 
does  assume  a  jurisdiction  of  necessity, 
so  far  as  they  are  to  be  considered  as 
trustees  of  the  revenue."  8 

"  The  foundations  of  colleges,"  says 
Lord  Mansfield,  "  are  to  be  considered 
in  two  views ;  namely,  as  they  are  cor 
porations  and  as  they  are  eleemosynary. 
As  eleemosynary,  they  are  the  creatures 
of  the  founder;  he  may  delegate  his 
power,  either  generally  or  specially ;  he 
may  prescribe  particular  modes  and  man 
ners,  as  to  the  exercise  of  part  of  it.  If 
he  makes  a  general  visitor  (as  by  the 
general  words  visitator  sit),  the  person  so 
constituted  has  all  incidental  power ;  but 
he  may  be  restrained  as  to  particular  in 
stances.  The  founder  may  appoint  a 
special  visitor  for  a  particular  purpose, 
and  no  further.  The  founder  may  make 
a  general  visitor ;  and  yet  appoint  an  in 
ferior  particular  power,  to  be  executed 
without  going  to  the  visitor  in  the  first 
instance."4  And  even  if  the  king  be 
founder,  if  he  grant  a  charter,  incorpo 
rating  trustees  and  governors,  they  are 
visitors,  and  the  king  cannot  visit.5  A 
subsequent  donation,  or  ingrafted  fel 
lowship,  falls  under  the  same  general 
visitatorial  power,  if  not  otherwise  spe 
cially  provided.6 

In  New  England,  and  perhaps  through 
out  the  United  States,  eleemosynary  cor 
porations  have  been  generally  established 
in  the  latter  mode;  that  is,  by  incorpo 
rating  governors,  or  trustees,  and  vesting 
in  them  the  right  of  visitation.  Small 

4  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  v.  Toding- 
ton,  1  Burr.  200. 

5  Attorney-General    v.    Middleton,   2    Ves. 
328. 

6  Green  v.  Rutherforth,  ubi  supra;  St.  John's 
College  r.  Todington,  ubi  supra. 


10 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


variations  may  have  been  in  some  in 
stances  adopted ;  as  in  the  case  of  Har 
vard  College,  where  some  power  of 
inspection  is  given  to  the  overseers,  but 
not,  strictly  speaking,  a  visitatorial 
power,  which  still  belongs,  it  is  appre 
hended,  to  the  fellows  or  members  of 
the  corporation.  In  general,  there  are 
many  donors.  A  charter  is  obtained, 
comprising  them  all,  or  some  of  them, 
and  such  others  as  they  choose  to  include, 
with  the  right  of  appointing  successors. 
They  are  thus  the  visitors  of  their  own 
charity,  and  appoint  others,  such  as  they 
may  see  fit,  to  exercise  the  same  office 
in  time  to  come.  All  such  corporations 
are  private.  The  case  before  the  court 
is  clearly  that  of  an  eleemosynary  cor 
poration.  It  is,  in  the  strictest  legal 
sense,  a  private  charity.  In  King  v. 
St.  Catherine's  Hall,1  that  college  is 
called  a  private  eleemosynary  lay  cor 
poration.  It  was  endowed  by  a  private 
founder,  and  incorporated  by  letters 
patent.  And  in  the  same  manner  was 
Dartmouth  College  founded  and  incor 
porated.  Dr.  Wheelock  is  declared  by 
the  charter  to  be  its  founder.  It  was 
established  by  him,  on  funds  contributed 
and  collected  by  himself. 

As  such  founder,  he  had  a  right  of 
visitation,  which  he  assigned  to  the  trus 
tees,  and  they  received  it  by  his  consent 
and  appointment,  and  held  it  under  the 
charter.2  He  appointed  these  trustees 
visitors,  and  in  that  respect  to  take  place 
of  his  heir ;  as  he  might  have  appointed 
devisees,  to  take  his  estate  instead  of  his 
heir.  Little,  probably,  did  he  think,  at 
that  time,  that  the  legislature  would  ever 
take  away  this  property  and  these  privi 
leges,  and  give  them  to  others.  Little 
did  he  suppose  that  this  charter  secured 
to  him  and  his  successors  no  legal  rights. 
Little  did  the  other  donors  think  so.  If 
they  had,  the  college  would  have  been, 
what  the  university  is  now,  a  thing  upon 
paper,  existing  only  in  name. 

The  numerous  academies  in  New 
England  have  been  established  substan 
tially  in  the  same  manner.  They  hold 
their  property  by  the  same  tenure,  and 

1  4  Term  Rep.  233. 


no  other.  Nor  has  Harvard  College  any 
surer  title  than  Dartmouth  College.  It 
may  to-day  have  more  friends ;  but  to 
morrow  it  may  have  more  enemies.  Its 
legal  rights  are  the  same.  So  also  of 
Yale  College;  and,  indeed,  of  all  the 
others.  When  the  legislature  gives  to 
these  institutions,  it  may  and  does  ac 
company  its  grants  with  such  conditions 
as  it  pleases.  The  grant  of  lands  by 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  to 
Dartmouth  College,  in  1789,  was  accom 
panied  with  various  conditions.  When 
donations  are  made,  by  the  legislature  or 
others,  to  a  charity  already  existing, 
without  any  condition,  or  the  specifica 
tion  of  any  new  use,  the  donation  fol 
lows  the  nature  of  the  charity.  Hence 
the  doctrine,  that  all  eleemosynary  cor 
porations  are  private  bodies.  They  are 
founded  by  private  persons,  and  on  pri 
vate  property.  The  public  cannot  be 
charitable  in  these  institutions.  It  is 
not  the  money  of  the  public,  but  of  pri 
vate  persons,  which  is  dispensed.  It 
may  be  public,  that  is  general,  in  its 
uses  and  advantages ;  and  the  State  may 
very  laudably  add  contributions  of  its 
own  to  the  funds ;  but  it  is  still  private 
in  the  tenure  of  the  property,  and  in  the 
right  of  administering  the  funds. 

If  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Lor4 
Holt,  and  the  House  of  Lords,  in 
Phillips  v.  Bury,  and  recognized  and  es 
tablished  in  all  the  other  cases,  be  cor 
rect,  the  property  of  this  college  was 
private  property;  it  was  vested  in  the 
trustees  by  the  charter,  and  to  be  ad 
ministered  by  them,  according  to  the 
will  of  the  founder  and  donors,  as  ex 
pressed  in  the  charter.  They  were  also 
visitors  of  the  charity,  in  the  most  ample 
sense.  They  had,  therefore,  as  they 
contend,  privileges,  property,  and  im 
munities,  within  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights.  They  had  rights, 
and  still  have  them,  which  they  can 
assert  against  the  legislature,  as  well  as 
against  other  wrong-doers.  It  makes 
no  difference,  that  the  estate  is  holden 
for  certain  trusts.  The  legal  estate  is 
still  theirs.  They  have  a  right  in  the 

2  Black,  ubi  supra, 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


11 


property,  and  they  have  a  right  of  visit 
ing  and  superintending  the  trust;  and 
this  is  an  object  of  legal  protection,  as 
much  as  any  other  right.  The  charter 
declares  that  the  powers  conferred  on 
the  trustees  are  "  privileges,  advantages, 
liberties,  and  immunities";  and  that 
they  shall  be  for  ever  holden  by  them 
and  their  successors.  The  New  Hamp 
shire  Bill  of  Rights  declares  that  no  one 
shall  be  deprived  of  his  "  property,  priv 
ileges,  or  immunities,"  but  by  judg 
ment  of  his  peers,  or  the  law  of  the  land. 
The  argument  on  the  other  side  is,  that, 
although  these  terms  may  mean  some 
thing  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  they  mean 
nothing  in  this  charter.  But  they  are 
terms  of  legal  signification,  and  very 
properly  used  in  the  charter.  They  are 
equivalent  with  franchises.  Blackstone 
says  that  franchise  and  liberty  are  used 
as  synonymous  terms.  And  after  enu 
merating  other  liberties  and  franchises, 
he  says:  "  It  is  likewise  a  franchise  for 
a  number  of  persons  to  be  incorporated 
and  subsist  as  a  body  politic,  with  a 
power  to  maintain  perpetual  succession 
and  do  other  corporate  acts;  and  each 
individual  member  of  such  a  corporation 
is  also  said  to  have  a  franchise  or  free 
dom."1 

^/Liberties  is  the  term  used  in  Magna 
Charta  as  including  franchises,  privi 
leges,  immunities,  and  all  the  rights 
which  belong  to  that  class.  Professor 
Sullivan  says,  the  term  signifies  the 
"privileges  that  some  of  the  subjects, 
whether  single  persons  or  bodies  cor 
porate,  have  above  others  by  the  lawful 
grant  of  the  king;  as  the  chattels  of 
felons  or  outlaws,  and  the  lands  and 
privileges  of  corporations."  2 

The  privilege,  then,  of  being  a  mem 
ber  of  a  corporation,  under  a  lawful 
grant,  and  of  exercising  the  rights  and 
powers  of  such  member,  is  such  a  privi 
lege,  liberty,  or  franchise,  as  has  been 
the  object  of  legal  protection,  and  the 
subject  of  a  legal  interest,  from  the  time 
of  Magna  Charta  to  the  present  moment. 
The  plaintiffs  have  such  an  interest  in 

1  2  Black.  Com.  37. 

2  Sull.  41st  Lect. 


this  corporation,  individually,  as  they 
could  assert  and  maintain  in  a  court  of 
law,  not  as  agents  of  the  public,  but  in 
their  own  right.  Each  trustee  has  a 
franchise,  and  if  he  be  disturbed  in  the 
enjoyment  of  it,  he  would  have  redress, 
on  appealing  to  the  law,  as  promptly  as 
for  any  other  injury.  If  the  other  trus 
tees  should  conspire  against  any  one  of 
them  to  prevent  his  equal  right  and 
voice  in  the  appointment  of  a  president 
or  professor,  or  in  the  passing  of  any 
statute  or  ordinance  of  the  college,  he 
would  be  entitled  to  his  action,  for  de 
priving  him  of  his  franchise.  It  makes 
no  difference,  that  this  property  is  to 
be  holden  and  administered,  and  these 
franchises  exercised,  for  the  purpose  of 
diffusing  learning.  No  principle  and 
no  case  establishes  any  such  distinction. 
The  public  may  be  benefited  by  the  use 
of  this  property.  But  this  does  not 
change  the  nature  of  the  property,  or 
the  rights  of  the  owners.  The  object  of 
the  charter  may  be  public  good ;  so  it  is 
in  all  other  corporations ;  and  this  would 
as  well  justify  the  resumption  or  viola 
tion  of  the  grant  in  any  other  case  as  in 
this.  In  the  case  of  an  advowson,  the 
use  is  public,  and  the  right  cannot  be 
turned  to  any  private  benefit  or  emolu 
ment.  It  is  nevertheless  a  legal  private 
right,  and  the  property  of  the  owner, 
as  emphatically  as  his  freehold.  The 
rights  and  privileges  of  trustees,  visit 
ors,  or  governors  of  incorporated  col 
leges,  stand  on  the  same  foundation. 
They  are  so  considered,  both  by  Lord 
Holt  and  Lord  Hardwicke.8 

To  contend  that  the  rights  of  the 
plaintiffs  may  be  taken  away,  because 
they  derive  from  them  no  pecuniary 
benefit  or  private  emolument,  or  be 
cause  they  cannot  be  transmitted  to 
their  heirs,  or  would  not  be  assets  to 
pay  their  debts,  is  taking  an  extremely 
narrow  view  of  the  subject.  According 
to  this  notion,  the  case  would  be  differ 
ent,  if,  in  the  charter,  they  had  stipu 
lated  for  a  commission  on  the  disburse 
ment  of  the  funds ;  and  they  have  ceased 

3  Phillips  v.  Bury,  and  Green  v.  Rutherforth, 
ubi  supra.  See  also  2  Black.  21. 


12 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


to  have  any  interest  in  the  property, 
because  they  have  undertaken  to  ad 
minister  it  gratuitously. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  much  in 
refutation  of  the  idea,  that  there  cannot 
be  a  legal  interest,  or  ownership,  in  any 
thing  which  does  not  yield  a  pecuniary 
profit;  as  if  the  law  regarded  no  rights 
but  the  rights  of  money,  and  of  visible, 
tangible  property.  Of  what  nature  are 
all  rights  of  suffrage?  No  elector  has  a 
particular  personal  interest;  but  each 
has  a  legal  right,  to  be  exercised  at  his 
own  discretion,  and  it  cannot  be  taken 
away  from  him.  The  exercise  of  this 
right  directly  and  very  materially  affects 
the  public ;  much  more  so  than  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  privileges  of  a  trustee  of 
this  college.  Consequences  of  the  ut 
most  magnitude  may  sometimes  depend 
on  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage 
by  one  or  a  few  electors.  Nobody  was 
ever  yet  heard  to  contend,  however, 
that  on  that  account  the  public  might 
take  away  the  right,  or  impair  it.  This 
notion  appears  to  be  borrowed  from  no 
better  source  than  the  repudiated  doc 
trine  of  the  three  judges  in  the  Ayles- 
bury  case.1  That  was  an  action  against 
a  returning  officer  for  refusing  the  plain 
tiff's  vote,  in  the  election  of  a  member 
of  Parliament.  Three  of  the  judges  of 
the  King's  Bench  held,  that  the  action 
could  not  be  maintained,  because,  among 
other  objections,  "  it  was  not  any  mat 
ter  of  profit,  either  in  presenti,  or  in 
futuro. ' '  It  would  not  enrich  the  plain 
tiff  in  presenti,  nor  would  it  in  futuro  go 
to  his  heirs,  or  answer  to  pay  his  debts. 
But  Lord  Holt  and  the  House  of  Lords 
were  of  another  opinion.  The  judg 
ment  of  the  three  judges  was  reversed, 
and  the  doctrine  they  held,  having  been 
exploded  for  a  century,  seems  now  for 
'  the  first  time  to  be  revived. 

Individuals  have  a  right  to  use  their 
own  property  for  purposes  of  benevo 
lence,  either  towards  the  public,  or 
towards  other  individuals.  They  have 
a  right  to  exercise  this  benevolence  in 
such  lawful  manner  as  they  may  choose ; 
and  when  the  government  has  induced 

1  Ashby  v.  White,  2  Lord  Raymond,  938. 


and  excited  it,  by  contracting  to  give 
perpetuity  to  the  stipulated  manner  of 
exercising  it,  it  is  not  law,  but  violence, 
to  rescind  this  contract,  and  seize  on  the 
property.  *  Whether  the  State  will  grant 
these  franchises,  and  under  what  condi 
tions  it  will  grant  them,  it  decides  for 
itself.  But  when  once  granted,  the  con 
stitution  holds  them  to  be  sacred,  till 
forfeited  for  just  cause. 

That  all  property,  of  which  the  use 
may  be  beneficial  to  the  public,  belongs 
therefore  to  the  public,  is  quite  a  new 
doctrine.  It  has  no  precedent,  and  is 
supported  by  no  known  principle.  Dr. 
Wheelock  might  have  answered  his  pur 
poses,  in  this  case,  by  executing  a  pri 
vate  deed  of  trust.  He  might  have 
conveyed  his  property  to  trustees,  for 
precisely  such  uses  as  are  described  in 
this  charter.  Indeed,  it  appears  that  he 
had  contemplated  the  establishing  of 
his  school  in  that  manner,  and  had 
made  his  will,  and  devised  the  property 
to  the  same  persons  who  were  after 
wards  appointed  trustees  in  the  charter. 
Many  literary  and  other  charitable  in 
stitutions  are  founded  in  that  manner, 
and  the  trust  is  renewed,  and  conferred 
on  other  persons,  from  time  to  time,  as 
occasion  may  require.  In  such  a  case, 
no  lawyer  would  or  could  say,  that  the 
legislature  might  divest  the  trustees, 
constituted  by  deed  or  will,  seize  upon 
the  property,  and  give  it  to  other  per 
sons,  for  other  purposes.  And  does  the 
granting  of  a  charter,  which  is  only 
done  to  perpetuate  the  trust  in  a  more 
convenient  manner,  make  any  differ 
ence?  Does  or  can  this  change  the 
nature  of  the  charity,  and  turn  it  into  a 
public  political  corporation?  Happily, 
we  are  not  without  authority  on  this 
point.  It  has  been  considered  and  ad 
judged.  Lord  Hardwicke  says,  in  so 
many  words,  "  The  charter  of  the  crown 
cannot  make  a  charity  more  or  less  pub 
lic,  but  only  more  permanent  than  it 
would  otherwise  be."2^^^^. 

The  granting  of  the  corporation  is  but 
making  the  trust  perpetual,  and  does 
not  alter  the  nature  of  the  charity.  The 

2  Attorney-General  v.  Pearce,  2  Atk.  87. 


THE    DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


13 


very  object  sought  in  obtaining  such 
charter,  and  in  giving  property  to  such 
a  corporation,  is  to  make  and  keep  it 
private  property,  and  to  clothe  it  with 
all  the  security  and  inviolability  of  pri 
vate  property.  The  intent  is,  that  there 
shall  be  a  legal  private  ownership,  and 
that  the  legal  owners  shall  maintain  and 
protect  the  property,  for  the  benefit  of 
those  for  whose  use  it  was  designed. 
Who  ever  endowed  the  public?  Who 
ever  appointed  a  legislature  to  adminis 
ter  his  charity?  Or  who  ever  heard, 
before,  that  a  gift  to  a  college,  or  a  hos 
pital,  or  an  asylum,  was,  in  reality, 
nothing  but  a  gift  to  the  State? 

The  State  of  Vermont  is  a  principal 
donor  to  Dartmouth  College.  The  lands 
given  lie  in  that  State.  This  appears  in 
the  special  verdict.  Is  Vermont  to  be 
considered  as  having  intended  a  gift  to 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  in  this 
case,  as,  it  has  been  said,  is  to  be  the 
reasonable  construction  of  all  donations 
to  the  college?  The  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  affects  to  represent  the  pub 
lic,  and  therefore  claims  a  right  to  con 
trol  all  property  destined  to  public  use. 
What  hinders  Vermont  from  consider 
ing  herself  equally  the  representative 
of  the  public,  and  from  resuming  her 
grants,  at  her  own  pleasure?  Her  right 
to  do  so  is  less  doubtful  than  the  power 
of  New  Hampshire  to  pass  the  laws  in 
question. 

In    University  v.  Foy,1  the   Supreme 
Court  of  North  Carolina  pronounced  un 
constitutional  and  void  a  law  repealing 
,°  «rant  to  the  University  of  North  Caro- 
^hflt.  university  was  origi- 
owed  by  a  statute 
;ase  was  a  grant  of 
t  decided   that  it 
led.      This   is   the 
I  id  capacity  to  hold 
le  difference  of  the 
e? 

•  ylor,2  this  court  de- 

-!;;tive  grant  or  confir- 

for  the  purposes  of 

us  instruction,   could 

led  than  other  grants. 

jp.  2  9  Cranch,  43. 


The  nature  of  the  use  was  not  holden  to 
make  any  difference.  A  grant  to  a  par 
ish  or  church,  for  the  purposes  which 
have  been  mentioned,  cannot  be  distin 
guished,  in  respect  to  the  title  it  confers, 
from  a  grant  to  a  college  for  the  promo 
tion  of  piety  and  learning.  To  the  same 
purpose  may  be  cited  the  case  of  Pawlett 
v.  Clark.  The  State  of  Vermont,  by 
statute,  in  1794,  granted  to  the  respec 
tive  towns  in  that  State  certain  glebe 
lands  lying  within  those  towns  for  the 
sole  use  and  support  of  religious  wor 
ship.  In  1799,  an  act  was  passed  to 
repeal  the  act  of  1794;  but  this  court 
declared,  that  the  act  of  1794,  "so  far 
as  it  granted  the  glebes  to  the  towns, 
could  not  afterwards  be  repealed  by  the 
legislature,  so  as  to  divest  the  rights  of 
the  towns  under  the  grant."  8 

It  will  be  for  the  other  side  to  show 
that  the  nature  of  the  use  decides  the 
question  whether  the  legislature  has 
power  to  resume  its  grants.  It  will  be 
for,  those  who  maintain  such  a  doc 
trine  to  show  the  principles  and  cases 
upon  which  it  rests.  It  will  be  for  them 
also  to  fix  the  limits  and  boundaries  of 
their  doctrine,  and  to  show  what  are 
and  what  are  not  such  uses  as  to  give 
the  legislature  this  powrer  of  resumption 
and  revocation.  And  to  furnish  an 
answer  to  the  cases  cited,  it  will  be 
for  them  further  to  show  that  a  grant 
for  the  use  and  support  of  religious 
worship  stands  on  other  ground  than 
a  grant  for  the  promotion  of  piety  and 
learning. 

I  hope  enough  has  been  said  to  show 
that  the  trustees  possessed  vested  liber 
ties,  privileges,  and  immunities,  under 
this  charter;  and  that  such  liberties, 
privileges,  and  immunities,  being  once 
lawfully  obtained  and  vested,  are  as  in 
violable  as  any  vested  rights  of  property 
whatever.  Rights  to  do  certain  acts, 
such,  for  instance,  as  the  visitation  and 
superintendence  of  a  college  and  the  ap 
pointment  of  its  officers,  may  surely  be 
vested  rights,  to  all  legal  intents,  as 
completely  as  the  right  to  possess  prop 
erty.  A  late  learned  judge  of  this  court 

8  9  Cranch,  292. 


14 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


has  said,  "When  I  say  that  a  right  is 
vested  in  a  citizen,  I  mean  that  he  has 
the  power  to  do  certain  actions,  or  to 
possess  certain  things,  according  to  the 
law  of  the  land."1 

If  such  be  the  true  nature  of  the  plain 
tiffs'  interests  under  this  charter,  what 
are  the  articles  in  the  New  Hampshire 
Bill  of  Rights  which  these  acts  infringe? 

They  infringe  the  second  article; 
which  says,  that  the  citizens  of  the  State 
have  a  right  to  hold  and  possess  prop 
erty.  The  plaintiffs  had  a  legal  property 
in  this  charter ;  and  they  had  acquired 
property  under  it.  The  acts  deprive 
them  of  both.  They  impair  and  take 
away  the  charter  ;  and  they  appropriate 
the  property  to  new  uses,  against  their 
consent.  The  plaintiffs  cannot  now 
hold  the  property  acquired  by  them 
selves,  and  which  this  article  says  they 
have  a  right  to  hold. 

They  infringe  the  twentieth  article. 
By  that  article  it  is  declared  that,  in 
questions  of  property,  there  is  a  right  to 
trial.  The  plaintiffs  are  divested,  with 
out  trial  or  judgment. 

They  infringe  the  twenty-third  article. 
It  is  therein  declared  that  no  retrospec 
tive  laws  shall  be  passed.  This  article 
bears  directly  on  the  case.  These  acts 
must  be  deemed  to  be  retrospective, 
within  the  settled  construction  of  that 
term.  What  a  retrospective  law  is,  has 
been  decided,  on  the  construction  of  this 
very  article,  in  the  Circuit  Court  for  the 
First  Circuit.  The  learned  judge  of  that 
circuit  says :  "  Every  statute  which  takes 
away  or  impairs  vested  rights,  acquired 
under  existing  laws,  must  be  deemed 
retrospective."  2  That  all  such  laws  are 
retrospective  was  decided  also  in  the 
case  of  Dash  v.  Van  Kleekf  where  a  most 
learned  judge  quotes  this  article  from 
the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire, 
with  manifest  approbation,  as  a  plain 
and  clear  expression  of  those  fundamen 
tal  and  unalterable  principles  of  justice, 
which  must  lie  at  the  foundation  of 

1  3  Dallas,  394. 

2  Society  t>.  Wheeler,  2  Gal.  103. 
8  7  Johnson's  Rep.  477. 

*  Bracton,  Lib.  4,  fol.  228.    2  Inst.  292. 


every  free  and  just  system  of  laws.  Can 
any  man  deny  that  the  plaintiffs  had 
rights,  under  the  charter,  which  were 
legally  vested,  and  that  by  these  acts 
those  righUfe  are  impaired? 

"  It  is  a  principle  in  the  English  law," 
says  Chief  Justice  Kent,  in  the  case  last 
cited,  "  as  ancient  as  the  law  itself,  that 
a  statute,  even  of  its  omnipotent  Parlia 
ment,  is  not  to  have  a  retrospective  ef 
fect.  *  Nova  constitutio  futuris  formam 
imponere  debet,  et  non  praeteritis.' 4 
The  maxim  in  Bracton  was  taken  from 
the  civil  law,  for  we  find  in  that  system 
the  same  principle,  expressed  substan 
tially  in  the  same  words,  that  the  law 
giver  cannot  alter  his  mind  to  the 
prejudice  of  a  vested  right.  '  Nemo 
potest  mutare  concilium  suum  in  alterius J 
injuriam.'5  This  maxim  of  Papinian 
is  general  in  its  terms,  but  Dr.  Taylor  6 
applies  it  directly  as  a  restriction  upon 
the  lawgiver,  and  a  declaration  in  the 
Code  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  of 
the  civil  law.  '  Leges  et  constitutions 
futuris  certum  est  dare  formam  negotiis, 
non  ad  facta  prseterita  revocari,  nisi  no- 
minatim,  et  de  praeterito  tempore,  et  ad- 
huc  pendentibus  negotiis  cautum  sit. ' 7 
This  passage,  according  to  the  best  in 
terpretation  of  the  civilians,  relates  not 
merely  to  future  suits,  but  to  future,  as 
contradistinguished  from  past,  contracts 
and  vested  rights.8  It  is  indeed  ad 
mitted  that  the  prince  may  enact  a  ret 
rospective  law,  provided  it  be  done  ex 
pressly  •  for  the  will  of  the  prince  under 
the  despotism  of  the  Roman  emperors 
was  paramount  to  every  obligation. 
Great  latitude  was  anciently  allowed  to 
legislative  expositions  of  statutes;  for 
the  separation  of  the  judicial  from  the 
legislative  power  was  not  then  distinctly 
known  or  prescribed.  The  prince  was  in 
the  habit  of  interpreting  his  cwn  laws  for 
particular  occasions.  This  vas  called 
the  '  Interlocutio  Principis  ' ;  and  this, 
according  to  Huber's  definition,  was, 
'  quando  principes  inter  partes  bquun- 


5  Dig.  50. 17.  75. 

6  Elements  of  the  Civil  Law,  p.  168. 

7  Cod.  1.  14.  7. 

8  Perezii  Praelect.  h.  t. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


15 


tur  et  jus  dicunt. ' l  No  correct  civilian, 
and  especially  no  proud  admirer  of  the 
ancient  republic  (if  any  such  then  ex 
isted)  ,  could  have  reflected  on  this  inter 
ference  with  private  rights  and  pending 
suits  without  disgust  and  indignation; 
and  we  are  rather  surprised  to  find  that, 
under  the  violent  and  arbitrary  genius 
of  the  Roman  government,  the  principle 
before  us  should  have  been  acknowl 
edged  and  obeyed  to  the  extent  in  which 
we  find  it.  The  fact  shows  that  it  must 
be  founded  in  the  clearest  justice.  Our 
case  is  happily  very  different  from  that 
of  the  subjects  of  Justinian.  With  us 
the  power  of  the  lawgiver  is  limited  and 
defined ;  the  judicial  is  regarded  as  a  dis 
tinct,  independent  power;  private  rights 
are  better  understood  and  more  exalted 
in  public  estimation,  as  well  as  secured 
by  provisions  dictated  by  the  spirit  of 
freedom,  and  unknown  to  the  civil  law. 
Our  constitutions  do  not  admit  the 
power  assumed  by  the  Roman  prince, 
and  the  principle  we  are  considering  is 
now  to  be  regarded  as  sacred." 

These  acts  infringe  also  the  thirty-sev 
enth  article  of  the  constitution  of  New 
Hampshire;  which  says,  that  the  powers 
of  government  shall  be  kept  separate. 
By  these  acts,  the  legislature  assumes  to 
exercise  a  judicial  power.  It  declares  a 
forfeiture,  and  resumes  franchises,  once 
granted,  without  trial  or  hearing. 

If  the  constitution  be  not  altogether 
waste-paper,  it  has  restrained  the  power 
of  the  legislature  in  these  particulars. 
If  it  has  any  meaning,  it  is  that  the  leg 
islature  shall  pass  no  act  directly  and 
manifestly  impairing  private  property 
and  private  privileges.  It  shall  not 
judge  by  act.  It  shall  not  decide  by 
act.  It  shall  not  deprive  by  act.  But 
it  shall  leave  all  these  things  to  be  tried 
and  adjudged  by  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  fifteenth  article  has  been  referred 
to  before.  It  declares  that  no  one  shall 
be  ''deprived  of  his  property,  immuni 
ties,  or  privileges,  but  by  the  judgment 
of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land." 
Notwithstanding  the  light  in  which  the 
learned  judges  in  New  Hampshire  viewed 

1  Proelect.  Juris.  Civ.,  Vol.  II.  p.  545. 


the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  under  the 
charter,  and  which  has  been  before  ad 
verted  to,  it  is  found  to  be  admitted  in 
their  opinion,  that  those  rights  are  priv 
ileges  within  the  meaning  of  this  fif 
teenth  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Hav 
ing  quoted  that  article,  they  say:  "  That 
the  right  to  manage  the  affairs  of  this 
college  is  a  privilege,  within  the  mean 
ing  of  this  clause  of  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
is  not  to  be  doubted."  In  my  humble 
opinion,  this  surrenders  the  point.  To 
resist  the  effect  of  this  admission,  how 
ever,  the  learned  judges  add:  "  But  how 
a  privilege  can  be  protected  from  the 
operation  of  the  law  of  the  land  by  a 
clause  in  the  constitution,  declaring  that 
it  shall  not  be  taken  away  but  by  the 
law  of  the  land,  is  not  very  easily  under 
stood.  ' '  This  answer  goes  on  the  ground, 
that  the  acts  in  question  are  laws  of  the 
land,  within  the  meaning  of  the  consti 
tution.  If  they  be  so,  the  argument 
drawn  from  this  article  is  fully  answered. 
If  they  be  not  so,  it  being  admitted  that 
the  plaintiffs'  rights  are  "privileges," 
within  the  meaning  of  the  article,  the 
argument  is  not  answered,  and  the  arti 
cle  is  infringed  by  the  acts. 

Are,  then,  these  acts  of  the  legislature, 
which  affect  only  particular  persons  and 
their  particular  privileges,  laws  of  the 
land  ?  Let  this  question  be  answered  by 
the  text  of  Blackstone.  "  And  first  it 
(i.  e.  law)  is  a  rule:  not  a  transient,  sud 
den  order  from  a  superior  to  or  concern 
ing  a  particular  person ;  but  something 
permanent,  uniform,  and  universal. 
Therefore  a  particular  act  of  the  legis 
lature  to  confiscate  the  goods  of  Titius, 
or  to  attaint  him  of  high  treason,  does 
not  enter  into  the  idea  of  a  municipal 
law  ;  for  the  operation  of  this  act  is 
spent  upon  Titius  only,  and  has  no  re 
lation  to  the  community  in  general ;  it  is 
rather  a  sentence  than  a  law."2  Lord 
Coke  is  equally  decisive  and  emphatic. 
Citing  and  commenting  on  the  celebrated 
twenty-ninth  chapter  of  Magna  Charta, 
he  says  :  "No  man  shall  be  disseized, 
&c.,  unless  it  be  by  the  lawful  judg 
ment,  that  is,  verdict  of  equals,  or  by 

2  1  Black.  Com.  44. 


16 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


the  law  of  the  land,  that  is  (to  speak  it 
once  for  all),  by  the  due  course  and 
process  of  law."1  Have  the  plaintiffs 
lost  their  franchises  by  "  due  course  and 
process  of  law"  ?  On  the  contrary,  are 
not  these  acts  "particular  acts  of  the 
legislature,  which  have  no  relation  to  the 
community  in  general,  and  which  are 
rather  sentences  than  laws  "  ? 

By  the  law  of  the  land  is  most  clearly 
intended  the  general  law ;  a  law  which 
hears  before  it  condemns;  which  pro 
ceeds  upon  inquiry,  and  renders  judg 
ment  only  after  trial.  The  meaning  is, 
that  every  citizen  shall  hold  his  life,  lib 
erty,  property,  and  immunities  under 
the  protection  of  the  general  rules  which 
govern  society.  Every  thing  which  may 
pass  under  the  form  of  an  enactment  is 
not  therefore  to  be  considered  the  law 
of  the  land.  If  this  were  so,  acts  of 
attainder,  bills  of  pains  and  penalties, 
acts  of  confiscation,  acts  reversing  judg 
ments,  and  acts  directly  transferring  one 
man's  estate  to  another,  legislative  judg 
ments,  decrees,  and  forfeitures  in  all 
possible  forms,  would  be  the  law  of  the 
land. 

Such  a  strange  construction  would 
render  constitutional  provisions  of  the 
highest  importance  completely  inopera 
tive  and  void.  It  would  tend  directly  to 
establish  the  union  of  all  powers  in  the 
legislature.  There  would  be  no  general, 
permanent  law  for  courts  to  administer 
or  men  to  live  under.  The  administra 
tion  of  justice  would  be  an  empty  form, 
an  idle  ceremony.  Judges  would  sit  to 
execute  legislative  judgments  and  de 
crees;  not  to  declare  the  law  or  to  ad 
minister  the  justice  of  the  country.  "  Is 
that  the  law  of  the  land,"  said  Mr. 
Burke,  "upon  which,  if  a  man  go  to 
Westminster  Hall,  and  ask  counsel  by 
what  title  or  tenure  he  holds  his  privi 
lege  or  estate  according  to  the  law  of  the 
land,  he  should  be  told,  that  the  law  of 
the  land  is  not  yet  known ;  that  no  de 
cision  or  decree  has  been  made  in  his 
case ;  that  when  a  decree  shall  be  passed, 
he  will  then  know  what  the  law  of  the 
land  is  ?  Will  this  be  said  to  be  the  law 

l  Coke,  2  Inst.  46. 


of  the  land,  by  any  lawyer  who  has  a 
rag  of  a  gown  left  upon  his  back,  or  a 
wig  with  one  tie  upon  his  head  ?  " 

That  the  power  of  electing  and  ap 
pointing  th"e  officers  of  this  college  is  not 
only  a  right  of  the  trustees  as  a  corpora 
tion,  generally,  and  in  the  aggregate, 
but  that  each  individual  trustee  has  also 
his  own  individual  franchise  in  such  right 
of  election  and  appointment,  is  accord 
ing  to  the  language  of  all  the  authorities. 
Lord  Holt  says  :  "  It  is  agreeable  to  rea 
son  and  the  rules  of  law,  that  a  franchise 
should  be  vested  in  the  corporation  ag 
gregate,  and  yet  the  benefit  of  it  to  re 
dound  to  the  particular  members,  and 
to  be  enjoyed  by  them  in  their  private 
capacity.  Where  the  privilege  of  elec 
tion  is  used  by  particular  persons,  it  is  a 
particular  right,  vested  in  every  particular 


It  is  also  to  be  considered,  that  the 
president  and  professors  of  this  college 
have  rights  to  be  affected  by  these  acts. 
Their  interest  is  similar  to  that  of  fel 
lows  in  the  English  colleges;  because 
they  derive  their  living,  wholly  or  in 
part,  from  the  founders'  bounty.  The 
president  is  one  of  the  trustees  or  cor 
porators.  The  professors  are  not  neces 
sarily  members  of  the  corporation  ;  but 
they  are  appointed  by  the  trustees,  are 
removable  only  by  them,  and  have  fixed 
salaries  payable  out  of  the  general  funds 
of  the  college.  Both  president  and  pro 
fessors  have  freeholds  in  their  offices; 
subject  only  to  be  removed  by  the  trus 
tees,  as  their  legal  visitors,  for  good 
cause.  All  the  authorities  speak  of  fel 
lowships  in  colleges  as  freeholds,  not 
withstanding  the  fellows  may  be  liable 
to  be  suspended  or  removed,  for  misbe 
havior,  by  their  constituted  visitors. 

Nothing  could  have  been  less  expected, 
in  this  age,  than  that  there  should  have 
been  an  attempt,  by  acts  of  the  legis 
lature,  to  take  away  these  college  liv 
ings,  the  inadequate  but  the  only  support 
of  literary  men  who  have  devoted  their 
lives  to  the  instruction  of  youth.  The 
president  and  professors  were  appointed 
by  the  twelve  trustees.  They  were  ac- 

2  2  Lord  Raymond,  952. 


THE   DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


17 


countable  to  nobody  else,  and  could  be 
removed  by  nobody  else.  They  accepted 
their  offices  on  this  tenure.  Yet  the 
legislature  has  appointed  other  persons, 
with  power  to  remove  these  officers  and 
to  deprive  them  of  their  livings  ;  and 
those  other  persons  have  exercised  that 
power.  No  description  of  private  prop 
erty  has  been  regarded  as  more  sacred 
than  college  livings.  They  are  the 
estates  and  freeholds  of  a  most  deserv 
ing  class  of  men;  of  scholars  who  have 
consented  to  forego  the  advantages  of 
professional  and  public  employments, 
and  to  devote  themselves  to  science  and 
literature  and  the  instruction  of  youth 
in  the  quiet  retreats  of  academic  life. 
Whether  to  dispossess  and  oust  them; 
to  deprive  them  of  their  office,  and  to 
turn  them  out  of  their  livings;  to  do 
this,  not  by  the  power  of  their  legal 
visitors  or  governors,  but  by  acts  of  the 
legislature,  and  to  do  it  without  forfeit 
ure  and  without  fault ;  whether  all  this 
be  not  in  the  highest  degree  an  inde 
fensible  and  arbitrary  proceeding,  is  a 
question  of  which  there  would  seem  to 
be  but  one  side  fit  for  a  lawyer  or  a 
scholar  to  espouse. 

Of  all  the  attempts  of  James  the  Sec 
ond  to  overturn  the  law,  and  the  rights 
of  his  subjects,  none  was  esteemed  more 
arbitrary  or  tyrannical  than  his  attack 
on  Magdalen  College,  Oxford;  and  yet 
that  attempt  was  nothing  but  to  put  out 
one  president  and  put  in  another.  The 
president  of  that  college,  according  to 
the  charter  and  statutes,  is  to  be  chosen 
by  the  fellows,  who  are  the  corporators. 
There  being  a  vacancy,  the  king  chose 
to  take  the  appointment  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  fellows,  the  legal  electors  of  a 
president,  into  his  own  hands.  He  there 
fore  sent  down  his  mandate,  command 
ing  the  fellows  to  admit  for  president  a 
person  of  his  nomination;  and,  inas 
much  as  this  was  directly  against  the 
charter  and  constitution  of  the  college, 
he  was  pleased  to  add  a  non  obstante 
clause  of  sufficiently  comprehensive  im 
port.  The  fellows  were  commanded  to 
admit  the  person  mentioned  in  the  man 
date,  "  any  statute,  custom,  or  constitu 
tion  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, 


wherewith  we  are  graciously  pleased  to 
dispense,  in  this  behalf."  The  fellows 
refused  obedience  to  this  mandate,  and 
Dr.  Hough,  a  man  of  independence  and 
character,  was  chosen  president  by  the 
fellows,  according  to  the  charter  and 
statutes.  The  king  then  assumed  the 
power,  in  virtue  of  his  prerogative,  to 
send  down  certain  commissioners  to  turn 
him  out;  which  was  done  accordingly; 
and  Parker,  a  creature  suited  to  the 
times,  put  in  his  place.  Because  the 
president,  who  was  rightfully  and  legally 
elected,  would  not  deliver  the  keys,  the 
doors  were  broken  open.  "The  nation 
as  well  as  the  university,"  says  Bishop 
Burnet,1  "looked  on  all  these  proceed 
ings  with  just  indignation.  It  was 
thought  an  open  piece  of  robbery  and 
burglary  when  men,  authorized  by  no 
legal  commission,  came  and  forcibly 
turned  men  out  of  their  possession  and 
freehold."  Mr.  Hume,  although  a  man 
of  different  temper,  and  of  other  senti 
ments,  in  some  respects,  than  Dr.  Bur- 
net,  speaks  of  this  arbitrary  attempt  of 
prerogative  in  terms  not  less  decisive. 
"  The  president,  and  all  the  fellows," 
says  he,  "except  two,  who  complied, 
were  expelled  the  college,  and  Parker 
was  put  in  possession  of  the  office.  This 
act  of  violence,  of  all  those  which  were 
committed  during  the  reign  of  James,  is 
perhaps  the  most  illegal  and  arbitrary. 
When  the  dispensing  power  was  the 
most  strenuously  insisted  on  by  court 
lawyers,  it  had  still  been  allowed  that 
the  statutes  which  regard  private  prop 
erty  could  not  legally  be  infringed  by 
that  prerogative.  Yet,  in  this  instance, 
it  appeared  that  even  these  were  not  now 
secure  from  invasion.  The  privileges  of 
a  college  are  attacked ;  men  are  illegally 
dispossessed  of  their  property  for  adher 
ing  to  their  duty,  to  their  oaths,  and  to 
their  religion." 

This  measure  King  James  lived  to 
repent,  after  repentance  was  too  late. 
When  the  charter  of  London  was  re 
stored,  and  other  measures  of  violence 
were  retracted,  to  avert  the  impending 
revolution,  the  expelled  president  and 

1  History  of  his  own  Times,  Vol.  III.  p. 
119. 


18 


THE   DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


fellows  of  Magdalen  College  were  per 
mitted  to  resume  their  rights.  It  is 
evident  that  this  was  regarded  as  an 
arbitrary  interference  with  private  prop 
erty.  Yet  private  property  was  no  oth 
erwise  attacked  than  as  a  person  was 
appointed  to  administer  and  enjoy  the 
revenues  of  a  college  in  a  manner  and 
by  persons  not  authorized  by  the  consti 
tution  of  the  college.  A  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  corporation  would  not 
comply  with  the  king's  wishes.  A 
minority  would.  The  object  was  there 
fore  to  make  this  minority  a  majority. 
To  this  end  the  king's  commissioners 
were  directed  to  interfere  in  the  case, 
and  they  united  with  the  two  complying 
fellows,  and  expelled  the  rest;  and  thus 
effected  a  change  in  the  government  of 
the  college.  The  language  in  which 
Mr.  Hume  and  all  other  writers  speak 
of  this  abortive  attempt  of  oppression, 
shows  that  colleges  were  esteemed  to  be, 
as  they  truly  are,  private  corporations, 
and  the  property  and  privileges  which 
belong  to  them  private  property  and 
private  privileges.  Court  lawyers  were 
found  to  justify  the  king  in  dispensing 
with  the  laws;  that  is,  in  assuming  and 
exercising  a  legislative  authority.  But 
no  lawyer,  not  even  a  court  lawyer,  in 
the  reign  of  King  James  the  Second,  as 
far  as  appears,  was  found  to  say  that, 
even  by  this  high  authority,  he  could 
infringe  the  franchises  of  the  fellows 
of  a  college,  and  take  away  their  liv 
ings.  Mr.  Hume  gives  the  reason;  it 
is,  that  such  franchises  were  regarded, 
in  a  most  emphatic  sense,  as  private  prop 
erty.1 

If  it  could  be  made  to  appear  that  the 
trustees  and  the  president  and  profes 
sors  held  their  offices  and  franchises 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature, 
and  that  the  property  holden  belonged 
to  the  State,  then  indeed  the  legislature 
have  done  no  more  than  they  had  a 
right  to  do.  But  this  is  not  so.  The 
charter  is  a  charter  of  privileges  and 
immunities;  and  these  are  holden  by 
the  trustees  expressly  against  the  State 
for  ever. 

1  See  a  full  account  of  this  case  in  State 
Trials,  4th  ed.,  Vol.  IV.  p.  202. 


It  is  admitted  that  the  State,  by  its 
courts  of  law,  can  enforce  the  will  of  the 
donor,  and  compel  a  faithful  execution 
of  the  trust.  The  plaintiffs  claim  no 
exemption  from  legal  responsibility. 
They  hold  themselves  at  all  times  an 
swerable  to  the  law  of  the  land,  for  their 
conduct  in  the  trust  committed  to  them. 
They  ask  only  to  hold  the  property  of 
which  they  are  owners,  and  the  fran 
chises  which  belong  to  them,  until  they 
shall  be  found,  by  due  course  and  pro 
cess  of  law,  to  have  forfeited  them. 

It  can  make  no  difference  whether  the 
legislature  exercise  the  power  it  has  as 
sumed  by  removing  the  trustees  and  the 
president  and  professors,  directly  and 
by  name,  or  by  appointing  others  to 
expel  them.  The  principle  is  the  same, 
and  in  point  of  fact  the  result  has  been 
the  same.  If  the  entire  franchise  can 
not  be  taken  away,  neither  can  it  be  es 
sentially  impaired.  If  the  trustees  are 
legal  owners  of  the  property,  they  are 
sole  owners.  If  they  are  visitors,  they 
are  sole  visitors.  No  one  will  be  found 
to  say,  that,  if  the  legislature  may  do 
what  it  has  done,  it  may  not  do  any 
thing  and  every  thing  which  it  may 
choose  to  do,  relative  to  the  property  of 
the  corporation,  and  the  privileges  of  its 
members  and  officers. 

If  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of 
this  question  be  at  all  correct,  this  was 
an  eleemosynary  corporation,  a  private 
charity.  The  property  was  private 
property.  The  trustees  were  visitors, 
and  the  right  to  hold  the  charter,  ad 
minister  the  funds,  and  visit  and  govern 
the  college,  was  a  franchise  and  privi 
lege,  solemnly  granted  to  them.  The 
use  being  public  in  no  way  diminishes 
their  legal  estate  in  the  property,  or 
their  title  to  the  franchise.  There  is  no 
principle,  nor  any  case,  which  declares 
that  a  gift  to  such  a  corporation  is  a  gift 
to  the  public.  The  acts  in  question 
violate  property.  They  take  away 
privileges,  immunities,  and  franchises. 
They  deny  to  the  trustees  the  protec 
tion  of  the  law ;  and  they  are  retrospec 
tive  in  their  operation.  In  all  which 
respects  they  are  against  the  constitu 
tion  of  New  Hampshire. 


THE   DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


19 


The  plaintiffs  contend,  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  acts  in  question  are  re 
pugnant  to  the  tenth  section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  material  words  of  that  sec 
tion  are :  "No  State  shall  pass  any 
bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or 
law  impairing  the  obligation  of  con 
tracts." 

The  object  of  these  most  important 
provisions  in  the  national  constitution 
has  often  been  discussed,  both  here  and 
elsewhere.  It  is  exhibited  with  great 
clearness  and  force  by  one  of  the  dis 
tinguished  persons  who  framed  that  in 
strument.  "Bills  of  attainder,  ex  post 
facto  laws,  and  laws  impairing  the  obli 
gation  of  contracts,  are  contrary  to  the 
first  principles  of  the  social  compact, 
and  to  every  principle  of  sound  legisla 
tion.  The  two  former  are  expressly 
prohibited  by  the  declarations  prefixed 
to  some  of  the  State  constitutions,  and 
all  of  them  are  prohibited  by  the  spirit 
and  scope  of  these  fundamental  charters. 
Our  own  experience  has  taught  us, 
nevertheless,  that  additional  fences 
against  these  dangers  ought  not  to  be 
omitted.  Very  properly,  therefore,  have 
the  convention  added  this  constitutional 
bulwark,  in  favor  of  personal  security 
and  private  rights ;  and  I  am  much  de 
ceived,  if  they  have  not,  in  so  doing,  as 
faithfully  consulted  the  genuine  senti 
ments  as  the  undoubted  interests  of 
their  constituents.  The  sober  people 
of  America  are  weary  of  the  fluctuating 
policy  which  has  directed  the  public 
councils.  They  have  seen  with  regret, 
and  with  indignation,  that  sudden 
changes,  and  legislative  interferences 
in  cases  affecting  personal  rights,  be 
come  jobs  in  the  hands  of  enterprising 
and  influential  speculators,  and  snares 
to  the  more  industrious  and  less  in 
formed  part  of  the  community.  They 
have  seen,  too,  that  one  legislative  in 
terference  is  but  the  link  of  a  long  chain 
of  repetitions;  every  subsequent  inter 
ference  being  naturally  produced  by  the 
effects  of  the  preceding. ' '  1 

It  has  already  been   decided   in  this 

1  The  Federalist,  No.  44,  by  Mr.  Madison. 


court,  that  a  grant  is  a  contract,  within 
the  meaning  of  this  provision ;  and  that 
a  grant  by  a  State  is  also  a  contract,  as 
much  as  the  grant  of  an  individual.  In 
the  case  of  Fletcher  v.  Peck*  this  court 
says:  "  A  contract  is  a  compact  between 
two  or  more  parties,  and  is  either  exec 
utory  or  executed.  An  executory  con 
tract  is  one  in  which  a  party  binds  him 
self  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  a  particular 
thing;  such  was  the  law  under  which 
the  conveyance  was  made  by  the  gov 
ernment.  A  contract  executed  is  one 
in  which  the  object  of  contract  is  per 
formed;  and  this,  says  Blackstone,  dif 
fers  in  nothing  from  a  grant.  The 
contract  between  Georgia  and  the  pur 
chasers  was  executed  by  the  grant.  A 
contract  executed,  as  well  as  one  which 
is  executory,  contains  obligations  bind 
ing  on  the  parties.  A  grant,  in  its  own 
nature,  amounts  to  an  extinguishment 
of  the  right  of  the  grantor,  and  implies 
a  contract  not  to  reassert  that  right. 
If,  under  a  fair  construction  of  the 
Constitution,  grants  are  comprehended 
under  the  term  contracts,  is  a  grant 
from  the  State  excluded  from  the  opera 
tion  of  the  provision?  Is  the  clause  to 
be  considered  as  inhibiting  the  State 
from  impairing  the  obligation  of  con 
tracts  between  two  individuals,  but  as 
excluding  from  that  inhibition  contracts 
made  with  itself?  The  words  them 
selves  contain  no  such  distinction. 
They  are  general,  and  are  applicable 
to  contracts  of  every  description.  If 
contracts  made  with  the  State  are  to  be 
exempted  from  their  operation,  the  ex 
ception  must  arise  from  the  character  of 
the  contracting  party,  not  from  the 
words  which  are  employed.  Whatever 
respect  might  have  been  felt  for  the 
State  sovereignties,  it  is  not  to  be  dis 
guised  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion  viewed  with  some  apprehension  the 
violent  acts  which  might  grow  out  of 
the  feelings  of  the  moment;  and  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  in 
adopting  that  instrument,  have  mani 
fested  a  determination  to  shield  them 
selves  and  their  property  from  the 

2  6  Cranch,  87. 


20 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


effects  of  those  sudden  and  strong  pas 
sions  to  which  men  are  exposed.  The 
restrictions  on  the  legislative  power  of 
the  States  are  obviously  founded  in  this 
sentiment;  and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  contains  what  may  be 
deemed  a  bill  of  rights  for  the  people  of 
each  State." 

It  has  also  been  decided,  that  a  grant 
by  a  State  before  the  Revolution  is  as 
much  to  be  protected  as  a  grant  since.1 
But  the  case  of  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  before 
cited,  is  of  all  others  most  pertinent  to 
the  present  argument.  Indeed,  the 
judgment  of  the  court  in  that  case 
seems  to  leave  little  to  be  argued  or 
decided  in  this.  "A  private  corpora 
tion,"  say  the  court,  "created  by  the 
legislature,  may  lose  its  franchises  by  a 
misuser  or  a  nonuser  of  them;  and  they 
may  be  resumed  by  the  government 
under  a  judicial  judgment  upon  a  quo 
warranto  to  ascertain  and  enforce  the 
forfeiture.  This  is  the  common  law  of 
the  land,  and  is  a  tacit  condition  an 
nexed  to  the  creation  of  every  such  cor 
poration.  Upon  a  change  of  govern 
ment,  too,  it  may  be  admitted,  that 
such  exclusive  privileges  attached  to  a 
private  corporation  as  are  inconsistent 
witli  the  new  government  may  be  abol 
ished.  In  respect,  also,  to  public  cor 
porations  which  exist  only  for  public 
purposes,  such  as  counties,  towns,  cities, 
and  so  forth,  the  legislature  may,  under 
proper  limitations,  have  a  right  to 
change,  modify,  enlarge,  or  restrain 
them,  securing,  however,  the  property 
for  the  uses  of  those  for  whom  and  at 
whose  expense  it  was  originally  pur 
chased.  But  that  the  legislature  can 
repeal  statutes  creating  private  corpora 
tions,  or  confirming  to  them  property 
already  acquired  under  the  faith  of  pre 
vious  laws,  and  by  such  repeal  can  vest 
the  property  of  such  corporations  ex 
clusively  in  the  State,  or  dispose  of  the 
same  to  such  purposes  as  they  please, 
without  the  consent  or  default  of  the 
corporators,  we  are  not  prepared  to  ad 
mit;  and  we  think  ourselves  standing 

1  New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cranch,  164. 


upon  the  principles  of  natural  justice, 
upon  the  fundamental  laws  of  every  free 
government,  upon  the  spirit  and  letter 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  upon  the  decisions  of  most  respect 
able  judicial  tribunals,  in  resisting 
such  a  doctrine." 

This  court,  then,  does  not  admit  the 
doctrine,  that  a  legislature  can  repeal 
statutes  creating  private  corporations. 
If  it  cannot  repeal  them  altogether,  of 
course  it  cannot  repeal  any  part  of  them, 
or  impair  them,  or  essentially  alter  them, 
without  the  consent  of  the  corporators. 
If,  therefore,  it  has  been  shown  that 
this  college  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  private 
charity,  this  case  is  embraced  within  the 
very  terms  of  that  decision.  A  grant  of 
corporate  powers  and  privileges  is  as 
much  a  contract  as  a  grant  of  land. 
What  proves  all  charters  of  this  sort  to 
be  contracts  is,  that  they  must  be  ac 
cepted  to  give  them  force  and  effect.  If 
they  are  not  accepted,  they  are  void. 
And  in  the  case  of  an  existing  corpora 
tion,  if  a  new  charter  is  given  it,  it  may 
even  accept  part  and  reject  the  rest.  In 
Rex  v.  Vice-Chancellor  of  Cambridge* 
Lord  Mansfield  says :  ' '  There  is  a  vast 
deal  of  difference  between  a  new  charter 
granted  to  a  new  corporation,  (who 
must  take  it  as  it  is  given,)  and  a  new 
charter  given  to  a  corporation  already  in 
being,  and  acting  either  under  a  former 
charter  or  under  prescriptive  usage. 
The  latter,  a  corporation  already  exist 
ing,  are  not  obliged  to  accept  the  new 
charter  in  toto,  and  to  receive  either  all 
or  none  of  it ;  they  may  act  partly  under 
it,  and  partly  under  their  old  charter  or 
prescription.  The  validity  of  these  new 
charters  must  turn  upon  the  acceptance 
of  them."  In  the  same  case  Mr.  Justice 
Wilmot  says:  "It  is  the  concurrence 
and  acceptance  of  the  university  that 
gives  the  force  to  the  charter  of  the 
crown. ' '  In  the  King  v.  Pasmore*  Lord 
Kenyon  observes:  "Some  things  are 
clear:  when  a  corporation  exists  capable 
of  discharging  its  functions,  the  crown 
cannot  obtrude  another  charter  upon 


2  3  Burr.  1656. 


3  3  Term  Rep.  240. 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE  CASE. 


21 


them;   they  may  either  accept  or  re 
ject  it."1 

In  all  cases  relative  to  charters,  the 
acceptance  of  them  is  uniformly  alleged 
in  the  pleadings.  This  sho\vs  the  gen 
eral  understanding  of  the  law,  that  they 
are  grants  or  contracts ;  and  that  parties 
are  necessary  to  give  them  force  and  va 
lidity.  In  King  v.  Dr.  Askew?  it  is 
said:  "  The  crown  cannot  oblige  a  man 
to  be  a  corporator,  without  his  consent ; 
he  shall  not  be  subject  to  the  inconven 
iences  of  it,  without  accepting  it  and 
assenting  to  it."  These  terms,  ''  accept 
ance  "  and  "assent,"  are  the  very  lan 
guage  of  contract.  In  Ellis  v.  Marshall? 
it  was  expressly  adjudged  that  the  nam 
ing  of  the  defendant  among  others,  in 
an  act  of  incorporation,  did  not  of  itself 
make  him  a  corporator ;  and  that  his  as 
sent  was  necessary  to  that  end.  The 
court  speak  of  the  act  of  incorporation 
as  a  grant,  and  observe:  "  That  a  man 
may  refuse  a  grant,  whether  from  the 
government  or  an  individual,  seems  to 
be  a  principle  too  clear  to  require  the 
support  of  authorities."  But  Justice 
Buller,  in  King  v.  Pasmore,  furnishes, 
if  possible,  a  still  more  direct  and  ex 
plicit  authority.  Speaking  of  a  corpo 
ration  for  government,  he  says:  "I  do 
not  know  how  to  reason  on  this  point 
better  than  in  the  manner  urged  by  one 
of  the  relator's  counsel ;  who  considered 
the  grant  of  incorporation  to  be  a  com 
pact  between  the  crown  and  a  certain 
number  of  the  subjects,  the  latter  of 
whom  undertake,  in  consideration  of 
the  privileges  which  are  bestowed,  to 
exert  themselves  for  the  good  govern 
ment  of  the  place."  This  language  ap 
plies  with  peculiar  propriety  and  force 
to  the  case  before  the  court.  It  was 
in  consequence  of  the  ' '  privileges  be 
stowed,"  that  Dr.  Wheelock  and  his  as 
sociates  undertook  to  exert  themselves 
for  the  instruction  and  education  of 
youth  in  this  college ;  and  it  was  on  the 
same  consideration  that  the  founder  en 
dowed  it  with  his  property. 

1  See  also  1  Kyd  on  Corp.  65. 

2  4  Burr.  2200." 

3  2  Mass.  Rep.  269. 


And  because  charters  of  incorporation 
are  of  the  nature  of  contracts,  they  can 
not  be  altered  or  varied  but  by  con 
sent  of  the  original  parties.  If  a  charter 
be  granted  by  the  king,  it  may  be  altered 
by  a  new  charter  granted  by  the  king, 
and  accepted  by  the  corporators.  But 
if  the  first  charter  be  granted  by  Parlia 
ment,  the  consent  of  Parliament  must  be 
obtained  to  any  alteration.  In  King  v. 
Miller,*  Lord  Kenyon  says:  "  Where  a 
corporation  takes  its  rise  from  the  king's 
charter,  the  king  by  granting,  and  the 
corporation  by  accepting  another  charter, 
may  alter  it,  because  it  is  done  with  the 
consent  of  all  the  parties  who  are  com- 

Pnt  to  consent  to  the  alteration."  5 
here  are,  in  this  case,  all  the  essen 
tial  constituent  parts  of  a  contract. 
There  is  something  to  be  contracted 
about,  there  are  parties,  and  there  are 
plain  terms  in  which  the  agreement  of 
the  parties  on  the  subject  of  the  contract 
is  expressed.  There  are  mutual  consid 
erations  and  inducements.  The  charter 
recites,  that  the  founder,  on  his  part, 
has  agreed  to  establish  his  seminary  in 
Xew  Hampshire,  and  to  enlarge  it  be 
yond  its  original  design,  among  other 
things,  for  the  benefit  of  that  Province; 
and  thereupon  a  charter  is  given  to  him 
and  his  associates,  designated  by  him 
self,  promising  and  assuring  to  them, 
under  the  plighted  faith  of  the  State, 
the  right  of  governing  the  college  and 
administering  its  concerns  in  the  manner 
provided  in  the  charter.  There  is  a 
complete  and  perfect  grant  to  them  of 
all  the  power  of  superintendence,  visita 
tion,  and  government.  Is  not  this  a 
contract?  If  lands  or  money  had  been 
granted  to  him  and  his  associates,  for 
the  same  purposes,  such  grant  could  not 
be  rescinded.  And  is  there  any  differ 
ence,  in  legal  contemplation,  between  a 
grant  of  corporate  franchises  and  a  grant 
of  tangible  property?  No  such  differ 
ence  is  recognized  in  any  decided  case, 
nor  does  it  exist  in  the  common  appre 
hension  of  mankind. 

4  6  Term  Rep.  277. 

5  See  also  Ex  parte  Bolton  School,  2  Brown's 
Ch.  Rep.  662. 


22 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


It  is  therefore  contended,  that  this 
case  falls  within  the  true  meaning  of  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  as  ex 
pounded  in  the  decisions  of  this  court ; 
that  the  charter  of  1769  is  a  contract,  a 
stipulation  or  agreement,  mutual  in  its 
considerations,  express  and  formal  in  its 
terms,  and  of  a  most  binding  and  sol 
emn  nature.  That  the  acts  in  question 
impair  this  contract,  has  already  been 
sufficiently  shown.  They  repeal  and  ab 
rogate  its  most  essential  parts.  &*dL 

A  single  observation  may  not  be  im 
proper  on  the  opinion  of  the  court  of 
New  Hampshire,  which  has  been  pub 
lished.  The  learned  judges  who  deliv 
ered  that  opinion  have  viewed  this 
question  in  a  very  different  light  from 
that  in  which  the  plaintiffs  have  endeav 
ored  to  exhibit  it.  After  some  general 
remarks,  they  assume  that  this  college 
is  a  public  corporation ;  and  on  this  basis 
their  judgment  rests.  Whether  all  col 
leges  are  not  regarded  as  private  and 
eleemosynary  corporations,  by  all  law 
writers  and  all  judicial  decisions ;  wheth 
er  this  college  was  not  founded  by  Dr. 
Wheelock ;  whether  the  charter  was  not 
granted  at  his  request,  the  better  to  ex 
ecute  a  trust,  which  he  had  already  cre 
ated  ;  whether  he  and  his  associates  did 
not  become  visitors,  by  the  charter;  and 
whether  Dartmouth  College  be  not, 
therefore,  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  pri 
vate  charity,  are  questions  which  the 
learned  judges  do  not  appear  to  have 
discussed. 

It  is  admitted  in  that  opinion,  that,  if 
it  be  a  private  corporation,  its  rights 
stand  on  the  same  ground  as  those  of  an 
individual.  The  great  question,  there 
fore,  to  be  decided  is,  To  which  class  of 
corporations  do  colleges  thus  founded 
belong?  And  the  plaintiffs  have  en 
deavored  to  satisfy  the  court,  that,  ac 
cording  to  the  well-settled  principles  and 
uniform  decisions  of  law,  they  are  pri 
vate,  eleemosynary  corporations. 

Much  has  heretofore  been  said  on  the 
necessity  of  admitting  such  a  power  in 
the  legislature  as  has  been  assumed  in 
this  case.  Many  cases  of  possible  evil 
have  been  imagined,  which  might  other 
wise  be  without  remedy.  Abuses,  it  is 


contended,  might  arise  in  the  manage 
ment  of  such  institutions,  which  the  or 
dinary  courts  of  law  would  be  unable  to 
correct.  But  this  is  only  another  in 
stance  of  "that  habit  of  supposing  ex 
treme  cases,  and  then  of  reasoning  from 
them,  which  is  the  constant  refuge  of 
those  who  are  obliged  to  defend  a  cause, 
which,  upon  its  merits,  is  indefensible. 
It  would  be  sufficient  to  say  in  answer, 
that  it  is  not  pretended  that  there  was 
here  any  such  case  of  necessity.  But  a 
still  more  satisfactory  answer  is,  that 
the  apprehension  of  danger  is  ground 
less,  and  therefore  the  whole  argument 
fails.  Experience  has  not  taught  us  that 
there  is  danger  of  great  evils  or  of  great 
inconvenience  from  this  source.  Hith 
erto,  neither  in  our  own  country  nor 
elsewhere  have  such  cases  of  necessity 
occurred.  The  judicial  establishments  of 
the  State  are  presumed  to  be  competent 
to  prevent  abuses  and  violations  of  trust, 
in  cases  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  in  all 
others.  If  they  be  not,  they  are  imper 
fect,  and  their  amendment  would  be  a 
most  proper  subject  for  legislative  wis 
dom.  Under  the  government  and  pro 
tection  of  the  general  laws  of  the  land, 
these  institutions  have  always  been 
found  safe,  as  well  as  useful.  They  go 
on,  with  the  progress  of  society,  accom 
modating  themselves  easily,  without  sud 
den  change  or  violence,  to  the  alterations 
which  take  place  in  its  condition,  and 
in  the  knowledge,  the  habits,  and  pur 
suits  of  men.  The  English  colleges  were 
founded  in  Catholic  ages.  Their  re 
ligion  was  reformed  with  the  general 
reformation  of  the  nation ;  and  they  are 
suited  perfectly  well  to  the  purpose  of 
educating  the  Protestant  youth  of  mod 
ern  times.  Dartmouth  College  was  es 
tablished  under  a  charter  granted  by  the 
Provincial  government;  but  a  better 
constitution  for  a  college,  or  one  more 
adapted  to  the  condition  of  things  under 
the  present  government,  in  all  material 
respects,  could  not  now  be  framed. 
Nothing  in  it  was  found  to  need  altera 
tion  at  the  Revolution.  The  wise  men 
of  that  day  saw  in  it  one  of  the  best 
hopes  of  future  times,  and  commended 
it  as  it  was,  with  parental  care,  to  the 


THE  DARTMOUTH   COLLEGE   CASE. 


23 


protection  and  guardianship  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  State.  A  charter  of 
more  liberal  sentiments,  of  wiser  pro 
visions,  drawn  with  more  care,  or  in  a 
better  spirit,  could  not  be  expected  at 
any  time  or  from  any  source.  The  col 
lege  needed  no  change  in  its  organiza 
tion  or  government.  That  which  it  did 
need  was  the  kindness,  the  patronage, 
the  bounty  of  the  legislature;  not  a 
mock  elevation  to  the  character  of  a  uni 
versity,  without  the  solid  benefit  of  a 
shilling's  donation  to  sustain  the  charac 
ter  ;  not  the  swelling  and  empty  author 
ity  of  establishing  institutes  and  other 
colleges.  This  unsubstantial  pageantry 
would  seem  to  have  been  in  derision 
of  the  scanty  endowment  and  limited 
means  of  an  unobtrusive,  but  useful 
and  growing  seminary.  Least  of  all 
was  there  a  necessity,  or  pretence  of  ne 
cessity,  to  infringe  its  legal  rights,  vio 
late  its  franchises  and  privileges,  and 
pour  upon  it  these  overwhelming  streams 
of  litigation. 

But  this  argument  from  necessity 
would  equally  apply  in  all  other  cases. 
If  it  be  well  founded,  it  would  prove, 
that,  whenever  any  inconvenience  or  evil 
is  experienced  from  the  restrictions  im 
posed  on  the  legislature  by  the  Con 
stitution,  these  restrictions  ought  to  be 
disregarded.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that 
the  people  have  thought  otherwise. 
They  have,  most  wisely,  chosen  to  take 
the  risk  of  occasional  inconvenience 
from  the  want  of  power,  in  order  that 
there  might  be  a  settled  limit  to  its 
exercise,  and  a  permanent  security 
against  its  abuse.  They  have  imposed 
prohibitions  and  restraints;  and  they 
have  not  rendered  these  altogether  vain 
and  nugatory  by  conferring  the  power  of 
dispensation.  If  inconvenience  should 
arise  which  the  legislature  cannot  rem 
edy  under  the  power  conferred  upon  it,  it 
is  not  answerable  for  such  inconvenience. 
That  which  it  cannot  do  within  the 
limits  prescribed  to  it,  it  cannot  do  at 
all.  No  legislature  in  this  country  is 
able,  and  may  the  time  never  come  wiien 
it  shall  be  able,  to  apply  to  itself  the 
memorable  expression  of  a  Roman  pon 
tiff:  "  Licet  hoc  de  jure  non  possumus, 


volumus    tamen    de    plenitudine  potes- 
tatis." 

jThe  case  before  the  court  is  not  of 
ordinary  importance,  nor  of  e very-day 
occurrence.  It  affects  not  this  college 
only,  but  every  college,  and  all  the 
literary  institutions  of  the  country. 
They  have  flourished  hitherto,  and  have 
become  in  a  high  degree  respectable  and 
useful  to  the  community.  They  have 
all  a  common  principle  of  existence,  the 
inviolability  of  their  charters.  It  will 
be  a  dangerous,  a  most  dangerous  ex 
periment,  to  hold  these  institutions  sub 
ject  to  the  rise  and  fall  of  popular 
parties,  and  the  fluctuations  of  political 
opinions.  If  the  franchise  may  be  at 
any  time  taken  away,  or  impaired,  the 
property  also  may  be  taken  away,  or  its 
use  perverted.  Benefactors  will  have  no 
certainty  of  effecting  the  object  of  their 
bounty;  and  learned  men  will  be  de 
terred  from  devoting  themselves  to  the 
service  of  such  institutions,  from  the  pre 
carious  title  of  their  offices.  Colleges 
and  halls  will  be  deserted  by  all  better 
spirits,  and  become  a  theatre  for  the 
contentions  of  politics.  Party  and  fac 
tion  will  be  cherished  in  the  places  con 
secrated  to  piety  and  learning.  These 
consequences  are  neither  remote  nor  pos 
sible  only.  They  are  certain  and  im 
mediate.  // 

When  the  court  in  North  Carolina 
declared  the  law  of  the  State,  which  re 
pealed  a  grant  to  its  university,  uncon 
stitutional  and  void,  the  legislature  had 
the  candor  and  the  wisdom  to  repeal  the 
law.  This  example,  so  honorable  to  the 
State  which  exhibited  it,  is  most  fit  to 
be  followed  on  this  occasion.  And  there 
is  good  reason  to  hope  that  a  State, 
which  has  hitherto  been  so  much  dis 
tinguished  for  temperate  counsels,  cau 
tious  legislation,  and  regard  to  law,  will 
not  fail  to  adopt  a  course  which  will 
accord  with  her  highest  and  best  inter 
ests,  and  in  no  small  degree  elevate  her 
reputation. 

It  was  for  many  and  obvious  reasons 
most  anxiously  desired  that  the  question 
of  the  power  of  the  legislature  over  this 
charter  should  have  been  finally  decided 
in  the  State  court.  An  earnest  hope 


24 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE   CASE. 


was  entertained  that  the  judges  of  the 
court  might  have  viewed  the  case  in  a 
light  favorable  to  the  rights  of  the  trus 
tees.  That  hope  has  failed.  It  is  here 
that  those  rights  are  now  to  be  main 
tained,  or  they  are  prostrated  for  ever. 
**  Omnia  alia  perfugia  bonorum,  sub- 


sidia,  consilia,  auxilia,  jura  cecidemnt. 
Quern  enim  alium  appellem?  quern  ob- 
tester?  quern  implorem?  Nisi  hoc  loco, 
nisi  apud  vos,  nisi  per  vos,  judices,  salu- 
tem  nostrum,  quse  spe  exigua  extremaque 
pendet,  tenuerimus ;  nihil  est  prseterea 
quo  confugere  possimus." 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


A  DISCOURSE   DELIVERED  AT  PLYMOUTH,  ON  THE    22o  OF  DECEMBER,   1820. 


[THE  first  public  anniversary  celebration 
of  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth 
took  place  under  the  auspices  of  the  "  Old 
Colony  Club,"  of  whose  formation  an  ac 
count  iftay  be  found  in  the  interesting  little 
work  of  William  S.  Russell,  Esq.,  entitled 
"Guide  to  Plymouth  and  Recollections  of 
the  Pilgrims." 

This  club  was  formed  for  general  pur 
poses  of  social  intercourse,  in  17(39 ;  but  its 
members  determined,  by  a  vote  passed  on 
Monday,  the  18th  of  December,  of  that  year, 
"  to  keep  "  Friday,  the  22d,  in  commemora 
tion  of  the  landing  of  the  fathers.  A  par 
ticular  account  of  the  simple  festivities  of 
this  first  public  celebration  of  the  landing 
of  the  Pilgrims  will  be  found  at  page  220 
of  Mr.  Russell's  work. 

The  following  year,  the  anniversary  was 
celebrated  much  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
1769,  with  the  addition  of  a  short  address, 
pronounced  "  with  modest  and  decent  firni- 
n£ss,  by  a  member  of  the  club,  Edward 
"VVinslow,  Jr.,  Esq.,"  being  the  first  address 
ever  delivered  on  this  occasion. 

In  1771,  it  was  suggested  by  Rev.  Chan 
dler  Robbins,  pastor  of  the  First  Church  at 
Plymouth,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  club, 
"  whether  it  would  not  be  agreeable,  for  the 
entertainment  and  instruction  of  the  rising 
generation  on  these  anniversaries,  to  have  a 
sermon  in  public,  some  part  of  the  day,  pe 
culiarly  adapted  to  the  occasion."  This 
recommendation  prevailed,  and  an  appro 
priate  discourse  was  delivered  the  following 
year  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Robbins. 

In  1773  the  Old  Colony  Club  was  dis 
solved,  in  consequence  of  the  conflicting 
opinions  of  its  members  on  the  great  polit 
ical  questions  then  agitated.  Notwithstand 
ing  this  event,  the  anniversary  celebrations 
of  the  22d  of  December  continued  without 
interruption  till  1780,  when  they  were  sus 
pended.  After  an  interval  of  fourteen  years, 
a  public  discourse  was  again  delivered  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Robbins.  Private  celebrations 
took  place  the  four  following  years,  and 
from  that  time  till  the  year  1819,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  the  day  was  annually 
commemorated,  and  public  addresses  were 


delivered  by  distinguished  clergymen  and 
laymen  of  Massachusetts. 

In  1820  the  "Pilgrim  Society"  was 
formed  by  the  citizens  of  Plymouth  and 
the  descendants  of  the  Pilgrims  in  other 
places,  desirous  of  uniting  "  to  commem 
orate  the  landing,  and  to  honor  the  memory 
of  the  intrepid  men  who  first  set  foot  on 
Plymouth  rock."  The  foundation  of  this 
society  gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  anniver 
sary  celebrations  of  this  great  event.  The 
Hon.  Daniel  Webster  was  requested  to  de 
liver  the  public  address  on  the  22d  of  De 
cember  of  that  year,  and  the  following 
discourse  was  pronounced  by  him  on  the 
ever-memorable  occasion.  Great  public  ex 
pectation  was  awakened  by  the  fame  of  the 
orator ;  an  immense  concourse  assembled  at 
Plymouth  to  unite  in  the  celebration ;  and 
it  may  be  safely  anticipated,  that  some  por 
tion  of  the  powerful  effect  of  the  following 
address  on  the  minds  of  those  who  were  so 
fortunate  as  to  hear  it,  will  be  perpetuated 
by  the  press  to  the  latest  posterity. 

From  1820  to  the  present  day,  with  occa 
sional  interruptions,  the  22d  of  December 
has  been  celebrated  by  the  Pilgrim  Society. 
A  list  of  all  those  by  whom  anniversary 
discourses  have  been  delivered  since  the 
first  organization  of  the  Old  Colony  Club, 
in  1769,  may  be  found  in  Mr.  Russell's 
work. 

Nor  has  the  notice  of  the  day  been  con 
fined  to  New  England.  Public  celebrations 
of  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  have  been 
frequent  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  par 
ticularly  in  New  York.  The  New  England 
Society  of  that  city  has  rarely  permitted 
the  day  to  pass  without  appropriate  honors. 
Similar  societies  have  been  formed  at  Phil 
adelphia,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  and  Cincinnati, 
and  the  day  has  been  publicly  commem 
orated  in  several  other  parts  of  the  coun 
try.] 

LET  us  rejoice  that  we  behold  this 
day.  Let  us  be  thankful  that  we  have 
lived  to  see  the  bright  and  happy  break 
ing  of  the  auspicious  morn,  which  com- 


26 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


mences  the  third  century  of  the  history 
of  New  England.  Auspicious,  indeed, 
—  bringing  a  happiness  beyond  the  com 
mon  allotment  of  Providence  to  men,  — 
full  of  present  joy,  and  gilding  with 
bright  beams  the  prospect  of  futurity,  is 
the  dawn  that  awakens  us  to  the  com 
memoration  of  the  landing  of  the  Pil 
grims. 

Living  at  an  epoch  which  naturally 
marks  the  progress  of  the  history  of  our 
native  land,  we  have  come  hither  to  cel 
ebrate  the  great  event  with  which  that 
history  commenced.  For  ever  honored 
be  this,  the  place  of  our  fathers'  refuge ! 
For  ever  remembered  the  day  which  saw 
them,  weary  and  distressed,  broken  in 
every  thing  but  spirit,  poor  in  all  but 
faith  and  courage,  at  last  secure  from 
the  dangers  of  wintry  seas,  and  impress 
ing  this  shore  with  the  first  footsteps  of 
civilized  man ! 

It  is  a  noble  faculty  of  our  nature 
which  enables  us  to  connect  our  thoughts, 
our  sympathies,  and  our  happiness  with 
what  is  distant  in  place  or  time;  and, 
looking  before  and  after,  to  hold  com 
munion  at  once  with  our  ancestors  and 
our  posterity.  Human  and  mortal  al 
though  we  are,  we  are  nevertheless  not 
mere  insulated  beings,  without  relation 
to  the  past  or  the  future.  Neither  the 
point  of  time,  nor  the  spot  of  earth,  in 
which  we  physically  live,  bounds  our  ra 
tional  and  intellectual  enjoyments.  AVe 
live  in  the  past  by  a  knowledge  of  its 
history;  and  in  the  future,  by  hope  and 
anticipation.  By  ascending  to  an  asso 
ciation  with  our  ancestors;  by  contem 
plating  their  example  and  studying  their 
character ;  by  partaking  their  sentiments, 
and  imbibing  their  spirit;  by  accompa 
nying  them  in  their  toils,  by  sympathiz 
ing  in  their  sufferings,  and  rejoicing  in 
their  successes  and  their  triumphs;  we 
seem  to  belong  to  their  age,  and  to  min 
gle  our  own  existence  with  theirs.  We 
become  their  contemporaries,  live  the 
lives  which  they  lived,  endure  what  they 
endured,  and  partake  in  the  rewards 
which  they  enjoyed.  And  in  like  man 
ner,  by  running  along  the  line  of  future 
time,  by  contemplating  the  probable  for 
tunes  of  those  who  are  coining  after  us, 


by  attempting  something  which  may 
promote  their  happiness,  and  leave  some 
not  dishonorable  memorial  of  ourselves 
for  their  regard,  when  we  shall  sleep  with 
the  fathers,  we  protract  our  own  earthly 
being,  and  seem  to  crowd  whatever  is 
future,  as  well  as  all  that  is  past,  into 
the  narrow  compass  of  our  earthly  exist 
ence.  As  it  is  not  a  vain  and  false,  but 
an  exalted  and  religious  imagination, 
which  leads  us  to  raise  our  thoughts 
from  the  orb,  which,  amidst  this  uni 
verse  of  worlds,  the  Creator  has  given 
us  to  inhabit,  and  to  send  them  with 
something  of  the  feeling  which  nature 
prompts,  and  teaches  to  be  proper  among 
children  of  the  same  Eternal  Parent,  to 
the  contemplation  of  the  myriads  of  fel 
low-beings  with  which  his  goodness  has 
peopled  the  infinite  of  space ;  so  neither 
is  "it  false  or  vain  to  consider  ourselves 
as  interested  and  connected  with  our 
whole  race,  through  all  time;  allied  to 
our  ancestors;  allied  to  our  posterity; 
closely  compacted  on  all  sides  with  oth 
ers;  ourselves  being  but  links  in  the 
great  chain  of  being,  which  begins  with 
the  origin  of  our  race,  runs  onward 
through  its  successive  generations,  bind 
ing  together  the  past,  the  present,  and 
the  future,  and  terminating  at  last,  with 
the  consummation  of  all  things  earthly, 
at  the  throne  of  God. 

There  may  be,  and  there  often  is,  in 
deed,  a  regard  for  ancestry,  which  nour 
ishes  only  a  weak  pride ;  as  there  is  also 
a  care  for  posterity,  which  only  disguises 
an  habitual  avarice,  or  hides  the  work 
ings  of  a  low  and  grovelling  vanity.  But 
there  is  also  a  moral  and  philosophical 
respect  for  our  ancestors,  which  elevates 
the  character  and  improves  the  heart. 
Next  to  the  sense  of  religious  duty  and 
moral  feeling,  I  hardly  know  what  should 
bear  with  stronger  obligation  on  a  lib 
eral  and  enlightened  mind,  than  a  con 
sciousness  of  alliance  with  excellence 
which  is  departed ;  and  a  consciousness, 
too,  that  in  its  acts  and  conduct,  and 
even  in  its  sentiments  and  thoughts,  it 
may  be  actively  operating  on  the  happi 
ness  of  those  who  come  after  it.  Poetry 
is  found  to  have  few  stronger  concep 
tions,  by  which  it  would  affect  or  over- 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


27 


whelm  the  mind,  than  those  in  which  it 
presents  the  moving  and  speaking  image 
of  the  departed  dead  to  the  senses  of  the 
living.  This  belongs  to  poetry,  only  be 
cause  it  is  congenial  to  our  nature. 
Poetry  is,  in  this  respect,  but  the  hand 
maid  of  true  philosophy  and  morality ;  it 
deals  with  us  as  human  beings,  naturally 
reverencing  those  whose  visible  connec 
tion  with  this  state  of  existence  is  sev 
ered,  and  who  may  yet  exercise  we 
know  not  what  sympathy  with  ourselves ; 
and  when  it  carries  us  forward,  also, 
and  shows  us  the  long  continued  result 
of  all  the  good  we  do,  in  the  prosperity 
of  those  who  follow  us,  till  it  bears  us 
from  ourselves,  and  absorbs  us  in  an  in 
tense  interest  for  what  shall  happen  to 
the  generations  after  us,  it  speaks  only 
in  the  language  of  our  nature,  and  af 
fects  us  with  sentiments  which  belong  to 
us  as  human  beings. 

Standing  in  this  relation  to  our  ances 
tors  and  our  posterity,  we  are  assembled 
on  this  memorable  spot,  to  perform  the 
duties  which  that  relation  and  the  pres 
ent  occasion  impose  upon  us.  We  have 
come  to  this  Rock,  to  record  here  our 
homage  for  our  Pilgrim  Fathers;  our 
sympathy  in  their  sufferings ;  our  grati 
tude  for  their  labors ;  our  admiration  of 
their  virtues;  our  veneration  for  their 
piety ;  and  our  attachment  to  those  prin 
ciples  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  which 
they  encountered  the  dangers  of  the 
ocean,  the  storms  of  heaven,  the  violence 
of  savages,  disease,  exile,  and  famine,  to 
enjoy  and  to  establish.  And  we  would 
leave  here,  also,  for  the  generations 
which  are  rising  up  rapidly  to  fill  our 
places,  some  proof  that  we  have  endeav 
ored  to  transmit  the  great  inheritance 
unimpaired;  that  in  our  estimate  of 
public  principles  and  private  virtue,  in 
our  veneration  of  religion  and  piety,  in 
our  devotion  to  civil  and  religious  lib 
erty,  in  our  regard  for  whatever  ad 
vances  human  knowledge  or  improves 
human  happiness,  we  are  not  altogether 
unworthy  of  our  origin. 

There  is  a  local  feeling  connected  with 
this  occasion,  too  strong  to  be  resisted; 
a  sort  of  genius  of  the  place,  which  in 
spires  and  awes  us.  We  feel  that  we  are 


on  the  spot  where  the  first  scene  of  our 
history  was  laid;  where  the  hearths  and 
altars  of  Xew  England  were  first  placed ; 
where  Christianity,  and  civilization,  and 
letters  made  their  first  lodgement,  in  a 
vast  extent  of  country,  covered  with  a 
wilderness,  and  peopled  by  roving  bar 
barians.  We  are  here,  at  the  season  of 
the  year  at  which  the  event  took  place. 
The  imagination  irresistibly  and  rapidly 
draws  around  us  the  principal  features 
and  the  leading  characters  in  the  origi 
nal  scene.  We  cast  our  eyes  abroad  on 
the  ocean,  and  we  see  where  the  little 
bark,  with  the  interesting  group  upon  its 
deck,  made  its  slow  progress  to  the 
shore.  We  look  around  us,  and  behold 
the  hills  and  promontories  where  the 
anxious  eyes  of  our  fathers  first  saw  the 

places  of  habitation  and  of  rest. We  A 

feel  the  cold  which  benumbed,  and  listen|| 
to  the  winds  which  pierced  them.  Be-lj 
neath  us  is  the  Rock,1  on  which  New 
England  received  the  feet  of  the  Pil 
grims.  We  seem  even  to  behold  them, 
as  they  struggle  with  the  elements,  and, 
with  toilsome  efforts,  gain  the  shore. 
We  listen  to  the  chiefs  in  council;  we 
see  the  unexampled  exhibition  of  female 
fortitude  and  resignation;  we  hear  the 
whisperings  of  youthful  impatience,  and 
we  see,  what  a  painter  of  our  own  has 
also  represented  by  his  pencil,2  chilled 
and  shivering  childhood,  houseless,  but  1 
for  a  mother's  arms,  couchless,  but  for  | 
a  mother's  breast,  till  our  own  blood 
almost  freezes.  The  mild  dignity  of 
Carver  and  of  Bradford;  the  decisive 
and  soldier-like  air  and  manner  of  Stan- 
dish;  the  devout  Brewster;  the  enter 
prising  Allerton ; 3  the  general  firmness 
and  thoughtf ulness  of  the  whole  band; 
their  conscious  joy  for  dangers  escaped ; 

1  An  interesting  account  of  the  Rock  may 
be  found  in  Dr.  Thacher's  History  of  the  Town 
of  Plymouth,  pp.  29,  198,  199. 

2  See  Note  A,  at  the  end  of  the  Discourse. 

3  For  notices  of  Carver,  Bradford,  Standish, 
Brewster,  and  Allerton,  see  Young's  Chronicles 
of  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts  ;  Morton's  Me 
morial,  p.  126;  Belknap's  American  Biography, 
Vol.  II.;  Hutchinson's  History,  Vol.  II.,  App., 
pp.  456  et  seq.;  Collections  of  the  Massachu 
setts  Historical  Society;  Winthrop's  Journal; 
and  Thacher's  History. 


28 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


their  deep  solicitude  about  dangers  to 
come ;  their  trust  in  Heaven ;  their  high 
religious  faith,  full  of  confidence  and  an 
ticipation;  all  of  these  seem  to  belong 
to  this  place,  and  to  be  present  upon 
this  occasion,  to  fill  us  with  reverence 
and  admiration. 

The  settlement  of  New  England  by 
the  colony  which  landed  here  1  on  the 
twenty-second2  of  December,  sixteen 
hundred  and  twenty,  although  not  the 
first  European  establishment  in  what 
now  constitutes  the  United  States,  was 
yet  so  peculiar  in  its  causes  and  charac 
ter,  and  has  been  followed  and  must 
still  be  followed  by  such  consequences, 
as  to  give  it  a  high  claim  to  lasting  com 
memoration.  On  these  causes  and  con 
sequences,  more  than  on  its  immediately 
attendant  circumstances,  its  importance, 
as  an  historical  event,  depends.  Great 
actions  and  striking  occurrences,  having 
excited  a  temporary  admiration,  often 
pass  away  and  are  forgotten,  because 
they  leave  no  lasting  results,  affecting 
the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  commu 
nities.  Such  is  frequently  the  fortune 
of  the  most  brilliant  military  achieve 
ments.  Of  the  ten  thousand  battles 
which  have  been  fought,  of  all  the 
fields  fertilized  with  carnage,  of  the 
banners  which  have  been  bathed  in 
blood,  of  the  warriors  who  have  hoped 
that  they  had  risen  from  the  field  of  con 
quest  to  a  glory  as  bright  and  as  durable 
as  the  stars,  how  few  that  continue  long 
to  interest  mankind!  The  victory  of 
yesterday  is  reversed  by  the  defeat  of  to 
day;  the  star  of  military  glory,  rising 
like  a  meteor,  like  a  meteor  has  fallen ; 
disgrace  and  disaster  hang  on  the  heels 
of  conquest  and  renown ;  victor  and  van 
quished  presently  pass  away  to  oblivion, 
and  the  world  goes  on  in  its  course,  with 
the  loss  only  of  so  many  lives  and  so 
much  treasure. 

But  if  this  be  frequently,  or  generally, 

1  For  the  original  name  of  what  is  now  Ply 
mouth,  see  Lives  of  American  Governors,  p.  38, 
note,  a  work  prepared  with  great  care  by  J.  B. 
Moore,  Esq. 

2  The  twenty -first  is  now  acknowledged  to  be 
the   true  anniversary.     See  the  Report  of  the 
Pilgrim  Society  on  the  subject. 


the  fortune  of  military  achievements,  it 
is  not  always  so.  There  are  enterprises, 
military  as  well  as  civil,  which  some 
times  check  the  current  of  events,  give 
a  new  tuA  to  human  affairs,  and  trans 
mit  their  consequences  through  ages. 
We  see  their  importance  in  their  results, 
and  call  them  great,  because  great  things 
follow.  There  have  been  battles  which 
have  fixed  the  fate  of  nations.  These 
come  down  to  us  in  history  with  a  solid 
and  permanent  interest,  not  created  by 
a  display  of  glittering  armor,  the  rush 
of  adverse  battalions,  the  sinking  and 
rising  of  pennons,  the  flight,  the  pursuit, 
and  the  victory;  but  by  their  effect  in 
advancing  or  retarding  human  knowl 
edge,  in  overthrowing  or  establishing 
despotism,  in  extending  or  destroying 
human  happiness.  When  the  traveller 
pauses  on  the  plain  of  Marathon,  what 
are  the  emotions  which  most  strongly 
agitate  his  breast?  What  is  that  glori 
ous  recollection,  which  thrills  through 
his  frame,  and  suffuses  his  eyes?  Not, 
I  imagine,  that  Grecian  skill  and  Gre 
cian  valor  were  here  most  signally  dis 
played;  but  that  Greece  herself  was 
saved.  It  is  because  to  this  spot,  and 
to  the  event  which  has  rendered  it  im 
mortal,  he  refers  all  the  succeeding  glo 
ries  of  the  republic.  It  is  because,  if 
that  day  had  gone  otherwise,  Greece  had 
perished.  It  is  because  he  perceives  that 
her  philosophers  and  orators,  her  poets 
and  painters,  her  sculptors  and  archi 
tects,  her  governments  and  free  institu 
tions,  point  backward  to  Marathon,  and 
that  their  future  existence  seems  to  have 
been  suspended  on  the  contingency, 
whether  the  Persian  or  the  Grecian  ban 
ner  should  wave  victorious  in  the  beams 
of  that  day's  setting  sun.  And,  as  his 
imagination  kindles  at  the  retrospect,  he 
is  transported  back  to  the  interesting 
moment;  he  counts  the  fearful  odds  of 
the  contending  hosts;  his  interest  for 
the  result  overwhelms  him ;  he  trembles, 
as  if  it  were  still  uncertain,  and  seems 
to  doubt  whether  he  may  consider  Soc 
rates  and  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Sopho 
cles,  and  Phidias,  as  secure,  yet,  to  him 
self  and  to  the  world. 

"If  we  conquer,"  said  the  Athenian 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


29 


commander  on  the  approach  of  that  de 
cisive  day,  "if  we  conquer,  we  shall 
make  Athens  the  greatest  city  of 
Greece."1  A  prophecy  how  well  ful 
filled!  "If  God  prosper  us,"  might 
have  beeu  the  more  appropriate  lan 
guage  of  our  fathers,  when  they  landed 
upon  this  Rock,  "  if  God  prosper  us,  we 
shall  here  begin  a  work  which  shall  last 
for  ages ;  we  shall  plant  here  a  new  soci 
ety,  in  the  principles  of  the  fullest  lib 
erty  and  the  purest  religion;  we  shall 
subdue  this  wilderness  which  is  before 
us ;  we  shall  fill  this  region  of  the  great 
continent,  which  stretches  almost  from 
pole  to  pole,  with  civilization  and  Chris 
tianity;  the  temples  of  the  true  God 
shall  rise,  where  now  ascends  the  smoke 
of  idolatrous  sacrifice;  fields  and  gar 
dens,  the  flowers  of  summer,  and  the 
waving  and  golden  harvest  of  autumn, 
shall  spread  over  a  thousand  hills,  and 
stretch  along  a  thousand  valleys,  never 
yet,  since  the  creation,  reclaimed  to  the 
use  of  civilized  man.  We  shall  whiten 
this  coast  with  the  canvas  of  a  prosper 
ous  commerce;  we  shall  stud  the  long 
and  winding  shore  with  a  hundred  cit 
ies.  That  which  we  sow  in  weakness 
shall  be  raised  in  strength.  From  our 
sincere,  but  houseless  worship,  there 
shall  spring  splendid  temples  to  record 
God's  goodness ;  from  the  simplicity  of 
our  social  union,  there  shall  arise  wise 
and  politic  constitutions  of  government, 
full  of  the  liberty  which  we  ourselves 
bring  and  breathe;  from  our  zeal  for 
learning,  institutions  shall  spring  which 
shall  scatter  the  light  of  knowledge 
throughout  the  land,  and,  in  time,  pay 
ing  back  where  they  have  borrowed, 
shall  contribute  their  part  to  the  great 
aggregate  of  human  knowledge ;  and  our 
descendants,  through  all  generations, 
shall  look  back  to  this  spot,  and  to  this 
hour,  with  unabated  affection  and  re 
gard." 

A  brief  remembrance  of  the  causes 
which  led  to  the  settlement  of  this  place: 
some  account  of  the  peculiarities  and 
characteristic  qualities  of  that  settle- 

1  Herodot.  VI.  §  109. 


ment,  as  distinguished  from  other  in 
stances  of  colonization ;  a  short  notice  of 
the  progress  of  New  England  in  the  great 
interests  of  society,  during  the  century 
which  is  now  elapsed ;  with  a  few  obser 
vations  on  the  principles  upon  which  so 
ciety  and  government  are  established  in 
this  country ;  comprise  all  that  can  be 
attempted,  and  much  more  than  can  be 
satisfactorily  performed,  on  the  present 
occasion. 

Of  the  motives  which  influenced  the 
first  settlers  to  a  voluntary  exile,  in 
duced  them  to  relinquish  their  native 
countiy,  and  to  seek  an  asylum  in  this 
then  unexplored  wilderness,  the  first  and 
principal,  no  doubt,  were  connected  with 
religion.  They  sought  to  enjoy  a  higher 
degree  of  religious  freedom,  and  what 
they  esteemed  a  purer  form  of  religious 
worship,  than  was  allowed  to  their  choice, 
or  presented  to  their  imitation,  in  the 
Old  World.  The  love  of  religious  lib 
erty  is  a  stronger  sentiment,  when  fully 
excited,  than  an  attachment  to  civil  or 
political  freedom.  That  freedom  which 
the  conscience  demands,  and  which  men 
feel  bound  by  their  hope  of  salvation  to 
contend  for,  can  hardly  fail  to  be  at 
tained.  Conscience,  in  the  cause  of  re 
ligion  and  the  worship  of  the  Deity, 
prepares  the  mind  to  act  and  to  suffer 
beyond  almost  all  other  causes.  It  some 
times  gives  an  impulse  so  irresistible, 
that  no  fetters  of  power  or  of  opinion 
can  withstand  it.  History  instructs  us 
that  this  love  of  religious  liberty,  a  com 
pound  sentiment  in  the  breast  of  man, 
made  up  of  the  clearest  sense  of  right 
and  the  highest  conviction  of  duty,  is 
able  to  look  the  sternest  despotism  in 
the  face,  and,  with  means  apparently 
most  inadequate,  to  shake  principalities 
and  powers.  There  is  a  boldness,  a 
spirit  of  daring,  in  religious  reformers, 
not  to  be  measured  by  the  general  rules 
which  control  men's  purposes  and  ac 
tions.  If  the  hand  of  power  be  laid 
upon  it,  this  only  seems  to  augment  its 
force  and  its  elasticity,  and  to  cause  its 
action  to  be  more  formidable  and  vio 
lent.  Human  invention  has  devised 
nothing,  human  power  has  compassed 


30 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


nothing,  that  can  forcibly  restrain  it, 
when  it  breaks  forth.  Nothing  can  stop 
it,  but  to  give  way  to  it;  nothing  can 
check  it,  but  indulgence.  It  loses  its 
power  only  when  it  has  gained  its  ob 
ject.  The  principle  of  toleration,  to 
which  the  world  has  come  so  slowly,  is 
at  once  the  most  just  and  the  most  wise 
of  all  principles.  Even  when  religious 
feeling  takes  a  character  of  extravagance 
and  enthusiasm,  and  seems  to  threaten 
the  order  of  society  and  shake  the  col 
umns  of  the  social  edifice,  its  principal 
danger  is  in  its  restraint.  If  it  be  al 
lowed  indulgence  and  expansion,  like 
the  elemental  fires,  it  only  agitates,  and 
perhaps  purifies,  the  atmosphere;  while 
its  efforts  to  throw  off  restraint  would 
burst  the  world  asunder. 

It  is  certain,  that,  although  many  of 
them  were  republicans  in  principle,  we 
have  no  evidence  that  our  New  England 
ancestors  would  have  emigrated,  as  they 
did,  from  their  own  native  country, 
would  have  become  wanderers  in  Europe, 
and  finally  would  have  undertaken  the 
establishment  of  a  colony  here,  merely 
from  their  dislike  of  the  political  sys 
tems  of  Europe.  They  fled  not  so  much 
from  the  civil  government,  as  from  the 
hierarchy,  and  the  laws  which  enforced 
conformity  to  the  church  establishment. 
Mr.  Robinson  had  left  England  as  early 
as  1008,  on  account  of  the  persecutions 
for  non-conformity,  and  had  retired  to 
Holland.  He  left  England  from  no  dis 
appointed  ambition  in  affairs  of  state, 
from  no  regrets  at  the  want  of  prefer 
ment  in  the  church,  nor  from  any  motive 
of  distinction  or  of  gain.  Uniformity  in 
matters  of  religion  was  pressed  with  such 
extreme  rigor,  that  a  voluntary  exile 
seemed  the  most  eligible  mode  of  escap 
ing  from  the  penalties  of  non-compliance. 
The  accession  of  Elizabeth  had,  it  is 
true,  quenched  the  fires  of  Smithfield, 
and  put  an  end  to  the  easy  acquisition  of 
the  crown  of  martyrdom.  Her  long  reign 
had  established  the  Reformation,  but 
toleration  was  a  virtue  beyond  her  con 
ception,  and  beyond  the  age.  She  left 
no  example  of  it  to  her  successor;  and 
he  was  not  of  a  character  which  rendered 
it  probable  that  a  sentiment  either  so 


wise  or  so  liberal  would  originate  with 
him.  At  the  present  period  it  seems  in 
credible  that  the  learned,  accomplished, 
unassuming,  and  inoffensive  Robinson 
should  neither  be  tolerated  in  his  peace 
able  mode  of  worship  in  his  own  coun 
try,  nor  suffered  quietly  to  depart  from 
it.  Yet  such  was  the  fact.  He  left  his 
country  by  stealth,  that  he  might  else 
where  enjoy  those  rights  which  ought 
to  belong  to  men  in  all  countries.  The 
departure  of  the  Pilgrims  for  Holland 
is  deeply  interesting,  from  its  circum 
stances,  and  also  as  it  marks  the  charac 
ter  of  the  times,  independently  of  its 
connection  with  names  now  incorporated 
with  the  history  of  empire.  The  em 
barkation  was  intended  to  be  made  in 
such  a  manner  that  it  might  escape  the 
notice  of  the  officers  of  government. 
Great  pains  had  been  taken  to  secure 
boats,  which  should  come  undiscovered 
to  the  shore,  and  receive  the  fugitives; 
and  frequent  disappointments  had  been 
experienced  in  this  respect. 

At  length  the  appointed  time  came, 
bringing  with  it  unusual  severity  of  cold 
and  rain.  An  unfrequented  and  barren 
heath,  on  the  shores  of  Lincolnshire,  was 
the  selected  spot,  where  the  feet  of  the 
Pilgrims  were  to  tread,  for  the  last  time, 
the  land  of  their  fathers.  The  vessel 
which  was  to  receive  them  did  not  come 
until  the  next  day,  and  in  the  mean 
time  the  little  band  was  collected,  and 
men  and  women  and  children  and  bag 
gage  were  crowded  together,  in  melan 
choly  and  distressed  confusion.  The  sea 
was  rough,  and  the  women  and  children 
were  already  sick,  from  their  passage 
down  the  river  to  the  place  of  embarka 
tion  on  the  sea.  At  length  the  wished- 
for  boat  silently  and  fearfully  approaches 
the  shore,  and  men  and  women  and  chil 
dren,  shaking  with  fear  and  with  cold, 
as  many  as  the  small  vessel  could  bear, 
venture  off  on  a  dangerous  sea.  Imme 
diately  the  advance  of  horses  is  heard 
from  behind,  armed  men  appear,  and 
those  not  yet  embarked  are  seized  and 
taken  into  custody.  In  the  hurry  of  the 
moment,  the  first  parties  had  been  sent 
on  board  without  any  attempt  to  keep 
members  of  the  same  family  together, 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


31 


and  on  account  of  the  appearance  of  the 
horsemen,  the  boat  never  returned  for 
the  residue.  Those  who  had  got  away, 
and  those  who  had  not,  were  in  equal 
distress.  A  storm,  of  great  violence  and 
long  duration,  arose  at  sea,  which  not 
only  protracted  the  voyage,  rendered  dis 
tressing  by  the  want  of  all  those  accom 
modations  which  the  interruption  of  the 
embarkation  had  occasioned,  but  also 
forced  the  vessel  out  of  her  course,  and 
menaced  immediate  shipwreck  ;  while 
those  on  shore,  when  they  were  dismissed 
from  the  custody  of  the  officers  of  jus 
tice,  having  no  longer  homes  or  houses 
to  retire  to,  and  their  friends  and  pro 
tectors  being  already  gone,  became  ob 
jects  of  necessary  charity,  as  well  as  of 
deep  commiseration. 

As  this  scene  passes  before  us,  we  can 
hardly  forbear  asking  whether  this  be  a 
band  of  malefactors  and  felons  flying 
from  justice.  What  are  their  crimes, 
that  they  hide  themselves  in  darkness  ? 
To  what  punishment  are  they  exposed, 
that,  to  avoid  it,  men,  and  women,  and 
children,  thus  encounter  the  surf  of  the 
North  Sea  and  the  terrors  of  a  night 
storm  ?  What  induces  this  armed  pur 
suit,  and  this  arrest  of  fugitives,  of  all 
ages  and  both  sexes  ?  Truth  does  not 
allow  us  to  answer  these  inquiries  in  a 
manner  that  does  credit  to  the  wisdom 
or  the  justice  of  the  times.  This  was 
not  the  flight  of  guilt,  but  of  virtue.  It 
was  an  humble  and  peaceable  religion, 
flying  from  causeless  oppression.  It  wras 
conscience,  attempting  to  escape  from 
the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  Stuarts.  It  was 
Robinson  and  Brewster,  leading  off  their 
little  band  from  their  native  soil,  at  first 
to  find  shelter  on  the  shore  of  the  neigh 
boring  continent,  but  ultimately  to  come 
hither ;  and  having  surmounted  all  diffi 
culties  and  braved  a  thousand  dangers, 
to  find  here,  a  place  of  refuge  and  of  rest. 
Thanks  be  to  God,  that  this  spot  was 
honored  as  the  asylum  of  religious  lib 
erty!  May  its  standard,  reared  here,  re 
main  for  ever !  May  it  rise  up  as  high  as 
heaven,  till  its  banner  shall  fan  the  air 
of  both  continents,  and  wave  as  a  glori 
ous  ensign  of  peace  and  security  to  the 
nations ! 


The  peculiar  character,  condition,  and 
circumstances  of  the  colonies  which  in 
troduced  civilization  and  an  English  race 
into  New  England,  afford  a  most  inter 
esting  and  extensive  topic  of  discussion. 
On  these,  much  of  our  subsequent  char 
acter  and  fortune  has  depended.  Their 
influence  has  essentially  affected  our 
whole  history,  through  the  twro  centuries 
which  have  elapsed;  and  as  they  have 
become  intimately  connected  with  gov 
ernment,  laws,  and  property,  as  well  as 
with  our  opinions  on  the  subjects  of  re 
ligion  and  civil  liberty,  that  influence  is 
likely  to  continue  to  be  felt  through  the 
centuries  which  shall  succeed.  Emigra 
tion  from  one  region  to  another,  and  the 
emission  of  colonies  to  people  countries 
more  or  less  distant  from  the  residence 
of  the  parent  stock,  are  common  inci 
dents  in  the  history  of  mankind ;  but  it 
has  not  often,  perhaps  never,  happened, 
that  the  establishment  of  colonies  should 
be  attempted  under  circumstances,  how 
ever  beset  with  present  difficulties  and 
dangers,  yet  so  favorable  to  ultimate 
success,  and  so  conducive  to  magnificent 
results,  as  those  which  attended  the  first 
settlements  on  this  part  of  the  American 
continent.  In  other  instances,  emigra 
tion  has  proceeded  from  a  less  exalted 
purpose,  in  periods  of  less  general  intel 
ligence,  or  more  without  plan  and  by 
accident ;  or  under  circumstances,  physi 
cal  and  moral,  less  favorable  to  the  ex 
pectation  of  laying  a  foundation  for  great 
public  prosperity  and  future  empire. 

A  great  resemblance  exists,  obviously, 
between  all  the  English  colonies  estab 
lished  within  the  present  limits  of  the 
United  States ;  but  the  occasion  attracts 
our  attention  more  immediately  to  those 
which  took  possession  of  New  England, 
and  the  peculiarities  of  these  furnish  a 
strong  contrast  with  most  other  instances 
of  colonization. 

Among  the  ancient  nations,  the  Greeks, 
no  doubt,  sent  forth  from  their  territories 
the  greatest  number  of  colonies.  So  nu 
merous,  indeed,  were  they,  and  so  great 
the  extent  of  space  over  wilich  they  were 
spread,  that  the  parent  country  fondly 
and  naturally  persuaded  herself,  that  by 
means  of  them  she  had  laid  a  sure  foun- 


32 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


dation  for  the  universal  civilization  of 
the  world.  These  establishments,  from 
obvious  causes,  were  most  numerous  in 
places  most  contiguous;  yet  they  were 
found  on  the  coasts  of  France,  on  the 
shores  of  the  Euxine  Sea,  in  Africa,  and 
even,  as  is  alleged,  on  the  borders  of 
India.  These  emigrations  appear  to 
have  been  sometimes  voluntary  and 
sometimes  compulsory ;  arising  from  the 
spontaneous  enterprise  of  individuals, 
or  the  order  and  regulation  of  govern 
ment.  It  was  a  common  opinion  with 
ancient  writers,  that  they  were  under 
taken  in  religious  obedience  to  the  com 
mands  of  oracles,  and  it  is  probable  that 
impressions  of  this  sort  might  have  had 
more  or  less  influence ;  but  it  is  probable, 
also,  that  on  these  occasions  the  oracles 
did  not  speak  a  language  dissonant  from 
the  views  and  purposes  of  the  state. 

Political  science  among  the  Greeks 
seems  never  to  have  extended  to  the 
comprehension  of  a  system,  which  should 
be  adequate  to  the  government  of  a  great 
nation  upon  principles  of  liberty.  They 
were  accustomed  only  to  the  contempla 
tion  of  small  republics,  and  were  led  to 
consider  an  augmented  population  as  in 
compatible  with  free  institutions.  The 
desire  of  a  remedy  for  this  supposed  evil, 
and  the  wish  to  establish  marts  for  trade, 
led  the  governments  often  to  undertake 
the  establishment  of  colonies  as  an  aif  air 
of  state  expediency.  Colonization  and 
commerce,  indeed,  would  naturally  be 
come  objects  of  interest  to  an  ingenious 
and  enterprising  people,  inhabiting  a 
territory  closely  circumscribed  in  its 
limits,  and  in  no  small  part  mountain 
ous  and  sterile ;  while  the  islands  of  the 
adjacent  seas,  and  the  promontories  and 
coasts  of  the  neighboring  continents,  by 
their  mere  proximity,  strongly  solicited 
the  excited  spirit  of  emigration.  Such 
was  this  proximity,  in  many  instances, 
that  the  new  settlements  appeared  rather 
to  be  the  mere  extension  of  population 
over  contiguous  territory,  than  the  es 
tablishment  of  distant  colonies.  In  pro 
portion  as  they  were  near  to  the  parent 
state,  they  would  be  under  its  authority, 
and  partake  of  its  fortunes.  The  colony 
at  Marseilles  might  perceive  lightly,  or 


not  at  all,  the  sway  of  Phocis ;  while  the 
islands  in  the  JEgean  Sea  could  hardly 
attain  to  independence  of  their  Athenian 
origin.  Many  of  these  establishments 
took  place  at  an  early  age ;  and  if  there 
were  defects  in  the  governments  of  the 
parent  states,  the  colonists  did  not  pos 
sess  philosophy  or  experience  sufficient 
to  correct  such  evils  in  their  own  insti 
tutions,  even  if  they  had  not  been,  by 
other  causes,  deprived  of  the  power.  An 
immediate  necessity,  connected  with  the 
support  of  life,  was  the  main  and  direct 
inducement  to  these  undertakings,  and 
there  could  hardly  exist  more  than  the 
hope  of  a  successful  imitation  of  insti 
tutions  with  which  they  were  already 
acquainted,  and  of  holding  an  equality 
with  their  neighbors  in  the  course  of 
improvement.  The  laws  and  customs, 
both  political  and  municipal,  as  well  as 
the  religious  worship  of  the  parent  city, 
were  transferred  to  the  colony ;  and  the 
parent  city  herself,  with  all  such  of  her 
colonies  as  were  not  too  far  remote  for 
frequent  intercourse  and  common  senti 
ments,  would  appear  like  a  family  of 
cities,  more  or  less  dependent,  and  more 
or  less  connected.  We  know  how  imper 
fect  this  system  was,  as  a  system  of  gen 
eral  politics,  and  what  scope  it  gave  to 
those  mutual  dissensions  and  conflicts 
which  proved  so  fatal  to  Greece. 

But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  our  present 
purpose  to  observe,  that  nothing  existed 
in  the  character  of  Grecian  emigrations, 
or  in  the  spirit  and  intelligence  of  the 
emigrants,  likely  to  give  a  new  and  im 
portant  direction  to  human  affairs,  or  a 
new  impulse  to  the  human  mind.  Their 
motives  were  not  high  enough,  their 
views  were  not  sufficiently  large  and 
prospective.  They  went  not  forth,  like 
our  ancestors,  to  erect  systems  of  more 
perfect  civil  liberty,  or  to  enjoy  a  higher 
degree  of  religious  freedom.  Above  all, 
there  was  nothing  in  the  religion  and 
learning  of  the  age,  that  could  either 
inspire  high  purposes,  or  give  the  ability 
to  execute  them.  Whatever  restraints 
on  civil  liberty,  or  whatever  abuses  in 
religious  worship,  existed  at  the  time  of 
our  fathers'  emigration,  yet  even  then 
all  was  light  in  the  moral  and  mental 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


33 


world,  in  comparison  with  its  condition 
in  most  periods  of  the  ancient  states. 
The  settlement  of  a  new  continent,  in 
an  age  of  progressive  knowledge  and  im 
provement,  could  not  but  do  more  than 
merely  enlarge  the  natural  boundaries  of 
the  habitable  world.  It  could  not  but 
do  much  more  even  than  extend  com 
merce  and  increase  wealth  among  the 
human  race.  We  see  how  this  event  has 
acted,  how  it  must  have  acted,  and  won 
der  onlv  why  it  did  not  act  sooner,  in 
the  production  of  moral  effects,  on  the 
state  of  human  knowledge,  the  general 
tone  of  human  sentiments,  and  the  pros 
pects  of  human  happiness.  It  gave  to 
civilized  man  not  only  a  new  continent 
to  be  inhabited  and  cultivated,  and  new 
seas  to  be  explored;  but  it  gave  him 
also  a  new  range  for  his  thoughts,  new 
objects  for  curiosity,  and  new  excite 
ments  to  knowledge  and  improvement. 

Roman  colonization  resembled,  far  less 
than  that  of  the  Greeks,  the  original 
settlements  of  this  country.  Power  and 
dominion  were  the  objects  of  Rome,  even 
in  her  colonial  establishments.  Her 
whole  exterior  aspect  was  for  centuries 
hostile  and  terrific.  She  grasped  at  do 
minion,  from  India  to  Britain,  and  her 
measures  of  colonization  partook  of  the 
character  of  her  general  system.  Her 
policy  was  military,  because  her  objects 
were  power,  ascendency,  and  subjuga 
tion.  Detachments  of  emigrants  from 
Rome  incorporated  themselves  with,  and 
governed,  the  original  inhabitants  of 
conquered  countries.  She  sent  citizens 
where  she  had  first  sent  soldiers ;  her  law 
followed  her  sword.  Her  colonies  were 
a  sort  of  military  establishment;  so 
many  advanced  posts  in  the  career  of 
her  dominion.  A  governor  from  Rome 
ruled  the  new  colony  with  absolute  sway, 
arid  often  with  unbounded  rapacity.  In 
Sicily,  in  Gaul,  in  Spain,  and  in  Asia, 
the  power  of  Rome  prevailed,  not  nomi 
nally  only,  but  really  and  effectually. 
Those  who  immediately  exercised  it  were 
Roman;  the  tone  and  tendency  of  its 
administration,  Roman.  Rome  herself 
continued  to  be  the  heart  and  centre  of 
the  great  system  which  she  had  estab 
lished.  Extortion  and  rapacity,  find 


ing  a  wide  and  often  rich  field  of  action 
in  the  provinces,  looked  nevertheless  to 
the  banks  of  the  Tiber,  as  the  scene  in 
which  their  ill-gotten  treasures  should  be 
displayed;  or,  if  a  spirit  of  more  honest- 
acquisition  prevailed,  the  object,  never 
theless,  was  ultimate  enjoyment  in  Rome 
itself.  If  our  own  history  and  our  own 
times  did  not  sufficiently  expose  the  in 
herent  and  incurable  evils  of  provincial 
government,  we  might  see  them  por 
trayed,  to  our  amazement,  in  the  deso 
lated  and  ruined  provinces  of  the  Roman 
empire.  We  might  hear  them,  in  a 
voice  that  terrifies  us,  in  those  strains 
of  complaint  and  accusation,  which  the 
advocates  of  the  provinces  poured  forth 
in  the  Roman  Forum :  —  "  Quas  res 
luxuries  in  flagitiis,  crudelitas  in  sup- 
pliciis,  avaritia  in  rapinis,  superbia  in 
contumeliis,  efficere  potuisset,  eas  omnes 
sese  pertulisse." 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  Roman 
Provinces  partook  of  the  fortunes,  as 
well  as  of  the  sentiments  and  general 
character,  of  the  seat  of  empire.  They 
lived  together  with  her,  they  flourished 
with  her,  and  fell  with  her.  The 
branches  were  lopped  away  even  before 
the  vast  and  venerable  trunk  itself  fell 
prostrate  to  the  earth.  Nothing  had 
proceeded  from  her  which  could  support 
itself,  and  bear  up  the  name  of  its  origin, 
when  her  own  sustaining  arm  should  be 
enfeebled  or  withdrawn.  It  was  not  given 
to  Rome  to  see,  either  at  her  zenith  or  in 
her  decline,  a  child  of  her  own,  distant, 
indeed,  and  independent  of  her  control, 
yet  speaking  her  language  and  inherit 
ing  her  blood,  springing  forward  to  a 
competition  with  her  own  power,  and  a 
comparison  -with  her  own  great  renown. 
She  saw  not  a  vast  region  of  the  earth 
peopled  from  her  stock,  full  of  states 
and  political  communities,  improving 
upon  the  models  of  her  institutions,  and 
breathing  in  fuller  measure  the  spirit 
which  she  had  breathed  in  the  best 
periods  of  her  existence;  enjoying  and 
extending  her  arts  and  her  literature; 
rising  rapidly  from  political  childhood 
to  manly  strength  and  independence; 
her  offspring,  yet  now  her  equal ;  uncon 
nected  with  the  causes  which  might 


34 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


affect  the  duration  of  her  own  power 
and  greatness;  of  common  origin,  but 
not  linked  to  a  common  fate;  giving 
ample  pledge,  that  her  name  should  not 
be  forgotten,  that  her  language  should 
not  cease  to  be  used  among  men ;  that 
whatsoever  she  had  done  for  human 
knowledge  and  human  happiness  should 
be  treasured  up  and  preserved ;  that  the 
record  of  her  existence  and  her  achieve 
ments  should  not  be  obscured,  although, 
in  the  inscrutable  purposes  of  Provi 
dence,  it  might  be  her  destiny  to  fall 
from  opulence  and  splendor;  although 
the  time  might  come,  when  darkness 
should  settle  on  all  her  hills ;  when  for 
eign  or  domestic  violence  should  overturn 
her  altars  and  her  temples;  when  igno 
rance  and  despotism  should  fill  the  places 
where  Laws,  and  Arts,  and  Liberty  had 
flourished;  when  the  feet  of  barbarism 
should  trample  on  the  tombs  of  her  con 
suls,  and  the  walls  of  her  senate-house 
and  forum  echo  only  to  the  voice  of 
savage  triumph.  She  saw  not  this  glori 
ous  vision,  to  inspire  and  fortify  her 
against  the  possible  decay  or  downfall 
of  her  power.  Happy  are  they  who  in 
our  day  may  behold  it,  if  they  shall  con 
template  it  with  the  sentiments  which  it 
ought  to  inspire ! 

The  Xew  England  Colonies  differ  quite 
as  widely  from  the  Asiatic  establishments 
of  the  modern  European  nations,  as  from 
the  models  of  the  ancient  states.  The 
sole  object  of  those  establishments  was 
originally  trade ;  although  we  have  seen, 
in  one  of  them,  the  anomaly  of  a  mere 
trading  company  attaining  a  political 
character,  disbursing  revenues,  and  main 
taining  armies  and  fortresses,  until  it  has 
extended  its  control  over  seventy  mil 
lions  of  people.  Differing  from  these, 
and  still  more  from  the  New  England 
and  North  American  Colonies,  are  the 
European  settlements  in  the  West  India 
Islands.  It  is  not  strange,  that,  when 
men's  minds  were  turned  to  the  settlement 
of  America,  different  objects  should  be 
proposed  by  those  who  emigrated  to  the 
different  regions  of  so  vast  a  country. 
Climate,  soil,  and  condition  were  not  all 
equally  favorable  to  all  pursuits.  In 
the  West  Indies,  the  purpose  of  those 


who  went  thither  was  to  engage  in  that 
species  of  agriculture,  suited  to  the  soil 
and  climate,  which  seems  to  bear  more 
resemblance  to  commerce  than  to  the 
hard  and  plain  tillage  of  New  England. 
The  great  staples  of  these  countries, 
being  partly  an  agricultural  and  partly 
a  manufactured  product,  and  not  being 
of  the  necessaries  of  life,  become  the 
object  of  calculation,  with  respect  to  a 
profitable  investment  of  capital,  like  any 
other  enterprise  of  trade  or  manufacture. 
The  more  especially,  as,  requiring,  by 
necessity  or  habit,  slave  labor  for  their 
production,  the  capital  necessary  to  car 
ry  on  the  work  of  this  production  is  very 
considerable.  The  West  Indies  are  re 
sorted  to,  therefore,  rather  for  the  in 
vestment  of  capital  than  for  the  purpose 
of  sustaining  life  by  personal  labor.  Such 
as  possess  a  considerable  amount  of  capi 
tal,  or  such  as  choose  to  adventure  in 
commercial  speculations  without  capital, 
can  alone  be  fitted  to  be  emigrants  to 
the  islands.  The  agriculture  of  these 
regions,  as  before  observed,  is  a  sort  of 
commerce ;  and  it  is  a  species  of  employ 
ment  in  which  labor  seems  to  form  an 
inconsiderable  ingredient  in  the  produc 
tive  causes,  since  the  portion  of  white 
labor  is  exceedingly  small,  and  slave 
labor  is  rather  more  like  profit  on  stock 
or  capital  than  labor  properly  so  called. 
The  individual  who  undertakes  an  es 
tablishment  of  this  kind  takes  into  the 
account  the  cost  of  the  necessary  num 
ber  of  slaves,  in  the  same  manner  as  he 
calculates  the  cost  of  the  land.  The  un 
certainty,  too,  of  this  species  of  employ 
ment,  affords  another  ground  of  resem 
blance  to  commerce.  Although  gainful 
on  the  whole,  and  in  a  series  of  years,  it 
is  often  very  disastrous  for  a  single  year, 
and,  as  the  capital  is  not  readily  invested 
in  other  pursuits,  bad  crops  or  bad  mar 
kets  not  only  affect  the  profits,  but  the 
capital  itself.  Hence  the  sudden  depres 
sions  which  take  place  in  the  value  of 
such  estates. 

But  the  great  and  leading  observation, 
relative  to  these  establishments,  remains 
to  be  made.  It  is,  that  the  owners  of 
the  soil  and  of  the  capital  seldom  con 
sider  themselves  at  home  in  the  colony. 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


35 


A  very  great  portion  of  the  soil  itself  is 
usually  owned  in  the  mother  country;  a 
still  greater  is  mortgaged  for  capital  ob 
tained  there;  and,  in  general,  those  who 
are  to  derive  an  interest  from  the  prod 
ucts  look  to  the  parent  country  as  the 
place  for  enjoyment  of  their  wealth.  The 
population  is  therefore  constantly  fluc 
tuating.  Nobody  comes  but  to  return. 
A  constant  succession  of  owners,  agents, 
and  factors  takes  place.  Whatsoever  the 
soil,  forced  by  the  unmitigated  toil  of 
slavery,  can  yield,  is  sent  home  to  defray 
rents,  and  interest,  and  agencies,  or  to 
give  the  means  of  living  in  a  better  so 
ciety.  In  such  a  state,  it  is  evident  that 
no  spirit  of  permanent  improvement  is 
likely  to  spring  up.  Profits  will  not  be 
invested  with  a  distant  view  of  benefit 
ing  posterity.  Roads  and  canals  will 
hardly  be  built  ;  schools  will  not  be 
founded ;  colleges  will  not  be  endowed. 
There  will  be  few  fixtures  in  society; 
no  principles  of  utility  or  of  elegance, 
planted  now,  with  the  hope  of  being  de 
veloped  and  expanded  hereafter.  Profit, 
immediate  profit,  must  be  the  principal 
active  spring  in  the  social  system.  There 
may  be  many  particular  exceptions  to 
these  general  remarks,  but  the  outline  of 
the  whole  is  such  as  is  here  drawn. 

Another  most  important  consequence 
of  such  a  state  of  things  is,  that  no  idea 
of  independence  of  the  parent  country  is 
likely  to  arise;  unless,  indeed,  it  should 
spring  up  in  a  form  that  would  threaten 
universal  desolation.  The  inhabitants 
have  no  strong  attachment  to  the  place 
which  they  inhabit.  The  hope  of  a 
great  portion  of  them  is  to  leave  it ;  and 
their  great  desire,  to  leave  it  soon.  How 
ever  useful  they  may  be  to  the  parent 
state,  how  much  soever  they  may  add  to 
the  conveniences  and  luxuries  of  life, 
these  colonies  are  not  favored  spots  for 
the  expansion  of  the  human  mind,  for 
the  progress  of  permanent  improvement, 
or  for  sowing  the  seeds  of  future  inde 
pendent  empire. 

Different,  indeed,  most  widely  differ 
ent,  from  all  these  instances  of  emigra 
tion  and  plantation,  were  the  condition, 
the  purposes,  and  the  prospects  of  our 
fathers,  when  they  established  their  in 


fant  colony  upon  this  spot.  They  came 
hither  to  a  land  from  which  they  were 
never  to  return.  Hither  they  had  brought, 
and  here  they  were  to  fix,  their  hopes, 
their  attachments,  and  their  objects  in 
life.  Some  natural  tears  they  shed,  as 
they  left  the  pleasant  abodes  of  their 
fathers,  and  some  emotions  they  sup 
pressed,  when  the  white  cliffs  of  their 
native  country,  now  seen  for  the  last 
time,  grew  dim  to  their  sight.  They 
were  acting,  however,  upon  a  resolution 
not  to  be  daunted.  With  whatever  sti 
fled  regrets,  with  whatever  occasional 
hesitation,  with  whatever  appalling  ap 
prehensions,  which  might  sometimes 
arise  with  force  to  shake  the  firmest 
purpose,  they  had  yet  committed  them 
selves  to  Heaven  and  the  elements ;  and 
a  thousand  leagues  of  water  soon  inter 
posed  to  separate  them  for  ever  from  the 
region  which  gave  them  birth.  A  new 
existence  awaited  them  here ;  and  when 
they  saw  these  shores,  rough,  cold,  bar 
barous,  and  barren,  as  then  they  were, 
they  beheld  their  country.  That  mixed 
and  strong  feeling,  which  we  call  love 
of  country,  and  which  is,  in  general, 
never  extinguished  in  the  heart  of  man , 
grasped  and  embraced  its  proper  object 
here.  Whatever  constitutes  country,  ex 
cept  the  earth  and  the  sun,  all  the  moral 
causes  of  affection  and  attachment  which 
operate  upon  the  heart,  they  had  brought 
with  them  to  their  new  abode.  Here 
were  now  their  families  and  friends, 
their  homes,  and  their  property.  Before 
they  reached  the  shore,  they  had  estab 
lished  the  elements  of  a  social  system.1 
and  at  a  much  earlier  period  had  settled 
their  forms  of  religious  worship.  At  the 
moment  of  their  landing,  therefore,  they 
possessed  institutions  of  government,  and 
institutions  of  religion :  and  friends  and 
families,  and  social  and  religious  insti 
tutions,  framed  by  consent,  founded  on 
choice  and  preference,  how  nearly  do 

1  For  the  compact  to  which  reference  is 
made  in  the  text,  signed  on  board  the  May 
flower,  see  Hutchinson's  History,  Vol.  II.,  Ap 
pendix,  No.  I.  For  an  eloquent  description  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  first  Christian  Sabbath 
was  passed  on  board  the  Mayflower,  at  Ply 
mouth,  see  Barnes's  Discourse  at  Worcester. 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW   ENGLAND. 


these  fill  up  our  whole  idea  of  country ! 
The  morning  that  beamed  on  the  first 
night  of  their  repose  saw  the  Pilgrims 
already  at  Jiojne  in  their  country.  Theue 
were  political  institutions,  and  civil  lib 
erty,  and  religious  worship.  Poetry  has 
fancied  nothing,  in  the  wanderings  of 
heroes,  so  distinct  and  characteristic. 
Here  was  man,  indeed,  unprotected,  and 
unprovided  for,  on  the  shore  of  a  rude 
and  fearful  wilderness ;  but  it  was  poli 
tic,  intelligent,  and  educated  man.  Ev 
ery  thing  was  civilized  but  the  physical 
world.  Institutions,  containing  in  sub 
stance  all  that  ages  had  done  for  human 
government,  were  organized  in  a  forest. 
Cultivated  mind  was  to  act  on  uncul 
tivated  nature;  and,  more  than  all,  a 
government  and  a  country  were  to  com 
mence,  with  the  very  first  foundations 
laid  under  the  divine  light  of  the  Chris 
tian  religion.  Happy  auspices  of  a  hap 
py  futurity !  Who  would  wish  that  his 
country's  existence  had  otherwise  begun  ? 
Who  would  desire  the  power  of  going 
back  to  the  ages  of  fable  '?  Who  would 
wish  for  an  origin  obscured  in  the  dark 
ness  of  antiquity  ?  Who  would  wish  for 
other  emblazoning  of  his  country's  her 
aldry,  or  other  ornaments  of  her  geneal 
ogy,  than  to  be  able  to  say,  that  her  first 
existence  was  with  intelligence,  her  first 
breath  the  inspiration  of  liberty,  her 
first  principle  the  truth  of  divine  re 
ligion  ? 

Local  attachments  and  sympathies 
would  ere  long  spring  up  in  the  breasts 
of  our  ancestors,  endearing  to  them  the 
place  of  their  refuge.  AVhatever  natural 
objects  are  associated  with  interesting 
scenes  and  high  efforts  obtain  a  hold  on 
human  feeling,  and  demand  from  the 
heart  a  sort  of  recognition  and  regard. 
This  Hock  soon  became  hallowed  in  the 
esteem  of  the  Pilgrims,1  and  these  hills 

1  The  names  of  the  passengers  in  the  May 
flower,  with  some  account  of  them,  may  be 
found  in  the  New  England  Genealogical  Regis 
ter,  Vol.  I.  p.  47,  and  a  narration  of  some  of  the 
incidents  of  the  voyage.  Vol.  II.  p.  180.  For 
an  account  of  Mrs.  White,  the  mother  of  the 
first  child  born  in  New  England,  see  Baylies's 
History  of  Plymouth,  Vol.  II.  p.  18,  and  for  a 
notice  of  her  son  Peregrine,  see  Moore's  Lives 
of  American  Governors,  Vol.  I.  p.  31,  iiotc. 


grateful  to  their  sight.  Neither  they  nor 
their  children  were  again  to  till  the  soil 
of  England,  nor  again  to  traverse  the 
seas  which  surround  her.2  But  here  was 
a  new  sea,  now  open  to  their  enterprise, 
and  a  new  soil,  which  had  not  failed  to 
respond  gratefully  to  their  laborious  in 
dustry,  and  which  was  already  assuming 
a  robe  of  verdure.  Hardly  had  they  pro 
vided  shelter  for  the  living,  ere  they  were 
summoned  to  erect  sepulchres  for  the 
dead.  The  ground  had  become  sacred, 
by  enclosing  the  remains  of  some  of  their 
companions  and  connections.  A  parent, 
a  child,  a  husband,  or  a  wife,  had  gone 
the  way  of  all  flesh,  and  mingled  with 
the  dust  of  New  England.  We  natu 
rally  look  with  strong  emotions  to  the 
spot,  though  it  be  a  wilderness,  where 
the  ashes  of  those  we  have  loved  repose. 
Where  the  heart  has  laid  down  what  it 
loved  most,  there  it  is  desirous  of  laying 
itself  down.  No  sculptured  marble,  no 
enduring  monument,  no  honorable  in 
scription,  no  ever-burning  taper  that 
would  drive  away  the  darkness  of  the 
tomb,  can  soften  our  sense  of  the  reality 
of  death,  and  hallow  to  our  feelings  the 
ground  which  is  to  cover  us,  like  the 
consciousness  that  we  shall  sleep,  dust 
to  dust,  with  the  objects  of  our  affec 
tions. 

In  a  short  time  other  causes  sprung 
up  to  bind  the  Pilgrims  with  new  cords 
to  their  chosen  land.  Children  were 
born,  and  the  hopes  of  future  genera 
tions  arose,  in  the  spot  of  their  new 
habitation.  The  second  generation 
found  this  the  land  of  their  nativity, 
and  saw  that  they  were  bound  to  its 
fortunes.  They  beheld  their  fathers' 
graves  around  them,  and  while  they 
read  the  memorials  of  their  toils  and 
labors,  they  rejoiced  in  the  inheritance 
which  they  found  bequeathed  to  them. 

Under  the  influence  of  these  causes, 
it  was  to  be  expected  that  an  interest 
and  a  feeling  should  arise  here,  entirely 
different  from  the  interest  and  feeling 
of  mere  Englishmen ;  and  all  the  subse- 

2  See  the  admirable  letter  written  on  board 
the  Arbella,  in  Hutchinson's  History,  Vol.  I., 
Appendix,  No.  I. 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


37 


quent  history  of  the  Colonies  proves  this 
to   have  actually   and   gradually  taken 
place.     With  a  general  ackno^syledgment 
of  the  supremacy  of  the  British  crown, 
there  was,  from  the  first,  a  repugnance 
to  an  entire  submission  to  the  control  of 
British  legislation.     The  Colonies  stood 
upon  their  charters,  which,  as  they  con 
tended,  exempted  them  from  the  ordi 
nary  power  of  the  British  Parliament, 
and  authorized  them   to   conduct  their 
own   concerns   by   their  own   counsels. 
They  utterly  resisted   the   notion   that 
they  were  to  be  ruled  by  the  mere  au 
thority  of  the  government  at  home,  and 
would  not  endure  even  that  their  own 
charter   governments   should   be   estab 
lished  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
It  was  not  a  controlling  or  protecting 
board  in  England,  but  a  government  of 
their   own,    and    existing    immediately 
within  their  limits,  which  could  satisfy 
their  wishes.     It  was  easy  to  foresee, 
what  we  know  also  to  have  happened, 
that  the  first  great  cause  of  collision  and 
jealousy  would  be,  under  the  notion  of 
political  economy  then  and  still  preva 
lent  in  Europe,  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  mother  country  to  monopolize  the 
trade   of   the    Colonies.     Whoever   has 
looked  deeply  into  the  causes  which  pro 
duced  our  Revolution  has   found,  if   I 
mistake  not,  the  original  principle  far 
back  in  this  claim,  on  the  part  of  Eng 
land,  to  monopolize   our  trade,   and  a 
continued  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Colo 
nies  to  resist  or  evade  that  monopoly; 
if,  indeed,  it  be  not  still  more  just  and 
philosophical  to  go  farther  back,  and  to 
consider  it  decided,  that  an  independent 
government  must  arise  here,  the  moment 
it    was    ascertained    that     an    English 
colony,  such  as   landed   in   this   place, 
could  sustain  itself  against  the  dangers 
which  surrounded   it,   and,   with  other 
similar  establishments,  overspread  the 
land  with  an  English  population.     Ac 
cidental  causes  retarded  at  times,  and  at 
times    accelerated,  the   progress  of  the 
controversy.       The     Colonies     wanted 
strength,    and   time    gave   it   to  them. 
They  required  measures  of  strong  and 
palpable  injustice,   on  the  part  of   the 
mother  country,    to  justify  resistance; 


the  early  part  of  the  late  king's  reign 
furnished  them.  They  needed  spirits 
of  high  order,  of  great  daring,  of  long 
ioresight,  and  of  commanding  power,  to 
seize  the  favoring  occasion  to  strike  a 
blow,  which  should  sever,  for  all  time, 
:he  tie  of  colonial  dependence;  and 
these  spirits  were  found,  in  all  the  ex 
tent  which  that  or  any  crisis  could  de 
mand,  in  Otis,  Adams,  Hancock,  and 
the  other  immediate  authors  of  our 
independence. 

Still,  it  is  true  that,  for  a  century, 
causes  had  been  in  operation  tending  to 
prepare  things  for  this  great  result.     In 
the  year  1660  the  English  Act  of  Navi 
gation  was  passed;  the  first  and  grand 
object  of  which  seems  to  have  been,  to 
secure  to  England  the  whole  trade  with 
her  plantations.1     It  was   provided  by 
that  act,  that  none  but  English  ships 
should  transport  American  produce  over 
the  ocean,  and  that  the  principal  articles 
of  that  produce  should  be  allowed  to  be 
sold  only  in  the  markets  of  the  mother 
country.      Three  years   afterwards   an 
other  law  was   passed,    which  enacted, 
that  such  commodities  as  the  Colonies 
might    wish     to    purchase    should    be 
bought    only    in    the    markets    of    the 
mother  country.     Severe  rules  were  pre 
scribed  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  these 
laws,  and  heavy  penalties  imposed  on 
all  who  should  violate  them.      In  the 
subsequent    years  of    the  same    reign, 
other  statutes  were  enacted  to  re-enforce 
these    statutes,    and    other    rules    pre 
scribed    to    secure    a    compliance  with 
these  rules.      In  this  manner  was  the 
trade    to    and   from    the    Colonies    re 
stricted,  almost    to    the    exclusive    ad 
vantage  of    the    parent  country.      But 
laws,  which  rendered  the  interest  of  a 
whole  people  subordinate  to  that  of  an 
other  people,  were  not  likely  to  execute 
themselves;    nor  was    it    easy   to    find 
many  on  the  spot,  who  could    be  de- 

1  In  reference  to  the  British  policy  respect 
ing  Colonial  manufactures,  see  Representations 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  House  of  Lords, 
23d  Jan.,  1734;  also,  8th  June,  1749.  For  an 
able  vindication  of  the  British  Colonial  policy, 
see  "  Political  Essays  concerning  the  Present 
State  of  the  British  Empire."  London,  1772. 


38 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


pended  upon  for  carrying  them  into 
execution.  In  fact,  these  laws  were 
more  or  less  evaded  or  resisted,  in  all 
the  Colonies.  To  enforce  them  was  the 
constant  endeavor  of  the  government  at 
home;  to  prevent  or  elude  their  opera 
tion,  the  perpetual  object  here.  "  The 
laws  of  navigation,"  says  a  living  Brit 
ish  writer,  "were  nowhere  so  openly 
disobeyed  and  contemned  as  in  New 
England."  "  The  people  of  Massachu 
setts  Bay,"  he  adds,  "were  from  the 
first  disposed  to  act  as  if  independent 
of  the  mother  country,  and  having  a 
governor  and  magistrates  of  their  own 
choice,  it  was  difficult  to  enforce  any 
regulation  which  came  from  the  Eng 
lish  Parliament,  adverse  to  their  inter 
ests."  To  provide  more  effectually  for 
the  execution  of  these  laws,  we  know 
that  courts  of  admiralty  were  afterwards 
established  by  the  crown,  with  power  to 
try  revenue  causes,  as  questions  of  ad 
miralty,  upon  the  construction  given  by 
the  crown  lawyers  to  an  act  of  Parlia 
ment  ;  a  great  departure  from  the  ordi 
nary  principles  of  English  jurispru 
dence,  but  which  has  been  maintained, 
nevertheless,  by  the  force  of  habit  and 
precedent,  and  is  adopted  in  our  own 
existing  systems  of  government. 

"There  lie,"  says  another  English 
writer,  whose  connection  with  the  Board 
of  Trade  has  enabled  him  to  ascertain 
many  facts  connected  with  Colonial  his 
tory,  "  There  lie  among  the  documents 
in  the  board  of  trade  and  state-paper 
office,  the  most  satisfactory  proofs,  from 
the  epoch  of  the  English  Revolution  in 
1688,  throughout  every  reign,  and  dur 
ing  every  administration,  of  the  settled 
purpose  of  the  Colonies  to  acquire  direct 
independence  and  positive  sovereignty." 
Perhaps  this  may  be  stated  somewhat 
too  strongly;  but  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  estab 
lishments  here,  and  from  the.  general 
character  of  the  measures  respecting 
their  concerns  early  adopted  and  stead 
ily  pursued  by  the  English  government, 
a  division  of  the  empire  was  the  natural 
and  necessary  result  to  which  every 
thing  tended.1 

1  Many  interesting  papers,  illustrating  the 


I  have  dwelt  on  this  topic,  because  it 
seems  to  me,  that  the  peculiar  original 
character  of  the  New  England  Colonies, 
and  certain  causes  coeval  with  their  ex 
istence,  have  had  a  strong  and  decided 
influence  on  all  their  subsequent  history, 
and  especially  on  the  great  event  of  the 
Revolution.  Whoever  would  write  our 
history,  and  would  understand  and  ex 
plain  early  transactions,  should  compre 
hend  the  nature  and  force  of  the  feeling 
which  I  have  endeavored  to  describe. 
As  a  son,  leaving  the  house  of  his  father 
for  his  own,  finds,  by  the  order  of 
nature,  and  the  very  law  of  his  being, 
nearer  and  dearer  objects  around  which 
his  affections  circle,  while  his  attach 
ment  to  the  parental  roof  becomes 
moderated,  by  degrees,  to  a  composed 
regard  and  an  affectionate  remem 
brance;  so  our  ancestors,  leaving  their 
native  land,  not  without  some  violence 
to  the  feelings  of  nature  and  affection, 
yet,  in  time,  found  here  a  new  circle  of 
engagements,  interests,  and  affections; 
a  feeling,  which  more  and  more  en 
croached  upon  the  old,  till  an  undivided 
sentiment,  that  this  was  their  country, 
occupied  the  heart;  and  patriotism, 
shutting  out  from  its  embraces  the  par 
ent  realm,  became  local  to  America. 

Some  retrospect  of  the  century  which 
has  now  elapsed  is  among  the  duties  of 
the  occasion.  It  must,  however,  neces 
sarily  be  imperfect,  to  be  compressed 
within  the  limits  of  a  single  discourse. 
I  shall  content  myself,  therefore,  with 
taking  notice  of  a  few  of  the  leading 
and  most  important  occurrences  which 
have  distinguished  the  period. 

When  the  first  century  closed,  the  prog 
ress  of  the  country  appeared  to  have  been 
considerable  ;  notwithstanding  that,  in 
comparison  with  its  subsequent  advance 
ment,  it  now  seems  otherwise.  A  broad 
and  lasting  foundation  had  been  laid; 
excellent  institutions  had  been  estab 
lished  ;  many  of  the  prejudices  of  former 
times  had  been  removed ;  a  more  liberal 

early  history  of  the  Colony,  may  be  found  in 
Hutchinson's  "Collection  of  Original  Papers 
relating  to  the  History  of  the  Colony  of  Massa 
chusetts  Bay." 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


39 


and  catholic  spirit  on  subjects  of  relig 
ious  concern  had  begun  to  extend  itself, 
and  many  things  conspired  to  give  prom 
ise  of  increasing  future  prosperity.  Great 
men  had  arisen  in  public  life,  and  the 
liberal  professions.  The  Mathers,  father 
and  son,  were  then  sinking  low  in  the 
western  horizon;  Leverett,  the  learned, 
the  accomplished,  the  excellent  Leverett, 
was  about  to  withdraw  his  brilliant  and 
useful  light.  In  Pemberton  great  hopes 
had  been  suddenly  extinguished,  but 
Prince  and  Colman  were  in  our  sky;  and 
along  the  east  had  begun  to  flash  the 
crepuscular  light  of  a  great  luminary 
which  was  about  to  appear,  and  which 
was  to  stamp  the  age  with  his  own  name, 
as  the  age  of  Franklin. 

The  bloody  Indian  wars,  which  har 
assed  the  people  for  a  part  of  the  first 
century ;  the  restrictions  on  the  trade  of 
the  Colonies,  added  to  the  discourage 
ments  inherently  belonging  to  all  forms 
of  colonial  government  ;  the  distance 
from  Europe,  and  the  small  hope  of  im 
mediate  profit  to  adventurers,  are  among 
the  causes  which  had  contributed  to  re 
tard  the  progress  of  population.  Per 
haps  it  may  be  added,  also,  that  during 
the  period  of  the  civil  wars  in  England, 
and  the  reign  of  Cromwell,  many  per 
sons,  whose  religious  opinions  and  re 
ligious  temper  might,  under  other  cir 
cumstances,  have  induced  them  to  join 
the  Xew  England  colonists,  found  rea 
sons  to  remain  in  England;  either  on 
account  of  active  occupation  in  the  scenes 
which  were  passing,  or  of  an  anticipation 
of  the  enjoyment,  in  their  own  country, 
of  a  form  of  government,  civil  and  re 
ligious,  accommodated  to  their  views 
and  principles.  The  violent  measures, 
too,  pursued  against  the  Colonies  in  the 
reign  of  Charles  the  Second,  the  mock 
ery  of  a  trial,  and  the  forfeiture  of  the 
charters,  were  serious  evils.  And  during 
the  open  violences  of  the  short  reign  of 
James  the  Second,  and  the  tyranny  of  An- 
dros,  as  the  venerable  historian  of  Con 
necticut  observes,  "All  the  motives  to 
great  actions,  to  industry,  economy,  en 
terprise,  wealth,  and  population,  were  in 
a  manner  annihilated.  A  general  inac 
tivity  and  languishnxent  pervaded  the 


public  body.  Liberty,  property,  and 
every  thing  which  ought  to  be  dear  to 
men,  every  day  grew  more  and  more  in 
secure." 

With  the  Revolution  in  England,  a 
better  prospect  had  opened  on  this  coun 
try,  as  well  as  on  that.  The  joy  had 
been  as  great  at  that  event,  and  far  more 
universal,  in  New  than  in  Old  England. 
A  new  charter  had  been  granted  to  Mas 
sachusetts,  which,  although  it  did  not 
confirm  to  her  inhabitants  all  their  for 
mer  privileges,  yet  relieved  them  from 
great  evils  and  embarrassments,  and 
promised  future  security.  More  than 
all,  perhaps,  the  Revolution  in  England 
had  done  good  to  the  general  cause  of 
liberty  and  justice.  A  blow  had  been 
struck  in  favor  of  the  rights  and  liber 
ties,  not  of  England  alone,  but  of  de 
scendants  and  kinsmen  of  England  all 
over  the  world.  Great  political  truths 
had  been  established.  The  champions 
of  liberty  had  been  successful  in  a  fear 
ful  and  perilous  conflict.  Somers,  and 
Cavendish,  and  Jekyl,  and  Howard,  had 
triumphed  in  one  of  the  most  noble 
causes  ever  undertaken  by  men.  A  revo 
lution  had  been  made  upon  principle.  A 
monarch  had  been  dethroned  for  violat 
ing  the  original  compact  between  king 
and  people.  The  rights  of  the  people 
to  partake  in  the  government,  and  to 
limit  the  monarch  by  fundamental  rules 
of  government,  had  been  maintained; 
and  however  unjust  the  government  of 
England  might  afterwards  be  towards 
other  governments  or  towards  her  colo 
nies,  she  had  ceased  to  be  governed  her 
self  by  the  arbitrary  maxims  of  the 
Stuarts. 

New  England  had  submitted  to  the 
violence  of  James  the  Second  not  longer 
than  Old  England.  Not  only  was  it  re 
served  to  Massachusetts,  that  on  her  soil 
should  be  acted  the  first  scene  of  that 
great  revolutionary  drama,  which  was  to 
take  place  near  a  century  afterwards,  but 
the  English  Revolution  itself,  as  far  as 
the  Colonies  were  concerned,  commenced 
in  Boston.  The  seizure  and  imprison 
ment  of  Andros,  in  April,  1689,  were 
acts  of  direct  and  forcible  resistance  to 
the  authority  of  James  the  Second.  The 


40 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


pulse  of  liberty  beat  as  high  in  the  ex 
tremities  as  at  the  heart.  The  vigorous 
feeling  of  the  Colony  burst  out  before  it 
was  known  how  the  parent  country  would 
finally  conduct  herself.  The  king's  rep 
resentative,  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  was  a 
prisoner  in  the  castle  at  Boston,  before 
it  was  or  could  be  known  that  the  king 
himself  had  ceased  to  exercise  his  full 
dominion  on  the  English  throne. 

Before  it  was  known  here  whether  the 
invasion  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  would 
or  could  prove  successful,  as  soon  as  it 
was  known  that  it  had  been  undertaken, 
the  people  of  Massachusetts,  at  the  im 
minent  hazard  of  their  lives  and  fortunes, 
had  accomplished  the  Revolution  as  far 
as  respected  themselves.  It  is  probable 
that,  reasoning  on  general  principles  and 
the  known  attachment  of  the  English 
people  to  their  constitution  and  liberties, 
and  their  deep  and  fixed  dislike  of  the 
king's  religion  and  politics,  the  people 
of  New  England  expected  a  catastrophe 
fatal  to  the  power  of  the  reigning  prince. 
Yet  it  was  neither  certain  enough,  nor 
near  enough,  to  come  to  their  aid  against 
the  authority  of  the  crown,  in  that  crisis 
which  had  arrived,  and  in  which  they 
trusted  to  put  themselves,  relying  on  God 
and  their  own  courage.  There  were  spir 
its  in  Massachusetts  congenial  with  the 
spirits  of  the  distinguished  friends  of 
the  Revolution  in  England.  There  were 
those  who  were  fit  to  associate  with  the 
boldest  asserters  of  civil  liberty;  and 
Mather  himself,  then  in  England,  was 
not  unworthy  to  be  ranked  with  those 
sons  of  the  Church,  whose  firmness  and 
spirit  in  resisting  kingly  encroachments 
in  matters  of  religion,  entitled  them  to 
the  gratitude  of  their  own  and  succeed 
ing  ages. 

The  second  century  opened  upon  New 
England  under  circumstances  which 
evinced  that  much  had  already  been  ac 
complished,  and  that  still  better  pros 
pects  and  brighter  hopes  were  before 
her.  She  had  laid,  deep  and  strong,  the 
foundations  of  her  society.  Her  relig 
ious  principles  were  firm,  and  her  moral 
habits  exemplary.  Her  public  schools 
had  begun  to  diffuse  widely  the  elements 
of  knowledge  ;  and  the  College,  under 


the  excellent  and  acceptable  administra 
tion  of  Leverett,  had  been  raised  to  a 
high  degree  of  credit  and  usefulness. 

The  commercial  character  of  the  coun 
try,  notwithstanding  all  discouragements, 
had  begun  to  display  itself,  and/fe  hun 
dred  vessels,  then  belonging  to  Massa 
chusetts,  placed  her,  in  relation  to  com 
merce,  thus  early  at  the  head  of  the 
Colonies.  An  author  who  wrote  very 
near  the  close  of  the  first  century  says:  — 
"  New  Engkind  is  almost  deserving  that 
noble  name,  so  mightily  hath  it  increased; 
and  from  a  small  settlement  at  first,  is 
now  become  a  very  populous  and  flour 
ishing  government.  The  capital  city, 
Boston,  is  a  place  of  great  wealth  and 
trade;  and  by  much  the  largest  of  any 
in  the  English  empire  of  America;  and 
not  exceeded  but  by  few  cities,  perhaps 
two  or  three,  in  all  the  American  world." 

But  if  our  ancestors  at  the  close  of  the 
first  century  could  look  back  with  joy 
and  even  admiration,  at  the  progress  of 
the  country,  what  emotions  must  we  not 
feel,  when,  from  the  point  on  which  we 
stand,  we  also  look  back  and  run  along 
the  events  of  the  century  which  has 
now  closed  !  The  country  which  then, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  thought  deserv 
ing  of  a  "  noble  name,"  —  which  then 
had  "  mightily  increased,"  and  become 
"very  populous,"  —  what  was  it,  in 
comparison  with  what  our  eyes  behold 
it?  At  that  period,  a  very  great  propor 
tion  of  its  inhabitants  lived  in  the  east 
ern  section  of  Massachusetts  proper,  and 
in  Plymouth  Colony.  In  Connecticut, 
there  were  towns  along  the  coast,  some 
of  them  respectable,  but  in  the  interior 
all  was  a  wilderness  beyond  Hartford. 
On  Connecticut  River,  settlements  had 
proceeded  as  far  up  as  Deerfield,  and 
Fort  Dummer  had  been  built  near  where 
is  now  the  south  line  of  New  Hamp 
shire.  In  New  Hampshire  no  settle 
ment  was  then  begun  thirty  miles  from 
the  mouth  of  Piscataqua  River,  and  in 
what  is  now  Maine  the  inhabitants  were 
confined  to  the  coast.  The  aggregate  of 
the  whole  population  of  New  England 
did  not  exceed  one  hundred  and  sixty 
thousand.  Its  present  amount  (1820) 
is  probably  one  million  seven  hundred 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


41 


thousand.  Instead  of  being  confined 
to  its  former  limits,  her  population  has 
rolled  backward,  and  filled  up  the  spaces 
included  within  her  actual  local  boun 
daries.  Not  this  only,  but  it  has  over 
flowed  those  boundaries,  and  the  waves 
of  emigration  have  pressed  farther  and 
farther  toward  the  West.  The  Alleghany 
has  not  checked  it;  the  banks  of  the 
Ohio  have  been  covered  with  it.  New 
England  farms,  houses,  villages,  and 
churches  spread  over  and  adorn  the  im 
mense  extent  from  the  Ohio  to  Lake  Erie, 
and  stretch  along  from  the  Alleghany 
onwards,  beyond  the  Miamis,  and  toward 
the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony.  Two  thousand 
miles  westward  from  the  rock  where 
their  fathers  landed,  may  now  be  found 
the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims,  cultivating 
smiling  fields,  rearing  towns  and  vil 
lages,  and  cherishing,  we  trust,  the  pat 
rimonial  blessings  of  wise  institutions, 
of  liberty,  and  religion.  The  world  has 
seen  nothing  like  this.  Regions  large 
enough  to  be  empires,  and  which,  half  a 
century  ago,  were  known  only  as  remote 
and  unexplored  wildernesses,  are  now 
teeming  with  population,  and  prosperous 
in  all  the  great  concerns  of  life ;  in  good 
governments,  the  means  of  subsistence, 
and  social  happiness.  It  may  be  safely 
asserted,  that  there  are  now  more  than 
a  million  of  people,  descendants  of  New 
England  ancestry,  living,  free  and  hap 
py,  in  regions  which  scarce  sixty  years 
ago  were  tracts  of  unpenetrated  forest. 
Nor  do  rivers,  or  mountains,  or  seas  re 
sist  the  progress  of  industry  and  enter 
prise.  Erelong,  the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims 
will  be  on  the  shores  of  the  Pacific.  *  The 
imagination  hardly  keeps  pace  with  the 
progress  of  population,  improvement, 
and  civilization. 

It  is  now  five-and-f  orty  years  since  the 
growth  and  rising  glory  of  America  were 
portrayed  in  the  English  Parliament, 
with  inimitable  beauty,  by  the  most  con 
summate  orator  of  modern  times.  Go 
ing  back  somewhat  more  than  half  a 
century,  and  describing  our  progress  as 

1  In  reference  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  pre 
diction,  see  Mr.  Webster's  Address  at  the  Cele 
bration  ot  the  New  England  Society  of  New 
York,  on  the  23d  of  December,  1850. 


foreseen  from  that  point  by  his  amiable 
friend  Lord  Bathurst,  then  living,  he 
spoke  of  the  wonderful  progress  which 
America  had  made  during  the  period  of 
a  single  human  life.  There  is  no  Amer 
ican  heart,  I  imagine,  that  does  not 
glow,  both  with  conscious,  patriotic 
pride,  and  admiration  for  one  of  the 
happiest  efforts  of  eloquence,  so  often 
as  the  vision  of  "  that  little  speck,  scarce 
visible  in  the  mass  of  national  interest, 
a  small  seminal  principle,  rather  than  a 
formed  body,"  and  the  progress  of  its 
astonishing  development  and  growth, 
are  recalled  to  the  recollection.  But  a 
stronger  feeling  might  be  produced,  if 
we  were  able  to  take  up  this  prophetic 
description  where  he  left  it,  and,  placing 
ourselves  at  the  point  of  time  in  which 
he  was  speaking,  to  set  forth  with  equal 
felicity  the  subsequent  progress  of  the 
country.  There  is  yet  among  the  liv 
ing  a  most  distinguished  and  venerable 
name,  a  descendant  of  the  Pilgrims;  one 
who  has  been  attended  through  life  by  a 
great  and  fortunate  genius ;  a  man  illus 
trious  by  his  own  great  merits,  and 
favored  of  Heaven  in  the  long  continua 
tion  of  his  years.2  The  time  when  the 
English  orator  was  thus  speaking  of 
America  preceded  but  by  a  few  days 
the  actual  opening  of  the  revolutionary 
drama  at  Lexington.  He  to  whom  I 
have  alluded,  then  at  the  age  of  forty, 
was  among  the  most  zealous  and  able 
defenders  of  the  violated  rights  of  his 
country.  He  seemed  already  to  have 
filled  a  full  measure  of  public  service, 
and  attained  an  honorable  fame.  The 
moment  was  full  of  difficulty  and  dan 
ger,  and  big  with  events  of  immeasura 
ble  importance.  The  country  was  on 
the  very  brink  of  a  civil  war,  of  which 
no  man  could  foretell  the  duration  or 
the  result.  Something  more  than  a 
courageous  hope,  or  characteristic  ardor, 
would  have  been  necessary  to  impress 
the  glorious  prospect  on  his  belief,  if,  at 
that  moment,  before  the  sound  of  the 
first  shock  of  actual  war  had  reached  his 
ears,  some  attendant  spirit  had  opened 

2  John    Adams,    second    President  of    the 
United  States. 


42 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


to  him  the  vision  of  the  future ;  —  if  it 
had  said  to  him,  "  The  blow  is  struck, 
and  America  is  severed  from  England 
for  ever!"  —  if  it  had  informed  him, 
that  he  himself,  during  the  next  annual 
revolution  of  the  sun,  should  put  his 
own  hand  to  the  great  instrument  of  in 
dependence,  and  write  his  name  where 
all  nations  should  behold  it  and  all  time 
should  not  efface  it;  that  erelong  he 
himself  should  maintain  the  interests 
and  represent  the  sovereignty  of  his  new 
born  country  in  the  proudest  courts  of 
Europe ;  that  he  should  one  day  exercise 
her  supreme  magistracy;  that  he  should 
yet  live  to  behold  ten  millions  of  fellow- 
citizens  paying  him  the  homage  of  their 
deepest  gratitude  and  kindest  affections ; 
that  he  should  see  distinguished  talent 
and  high  public  trust  resting  where  his 
name  rested;  that  he  should  even  see 
with  his  own  unclouded  eyes  the  close  of 
the  second  century  of  New  England, 
who  had  begun  life  almost  with  its  com 
mencement,  and  lived  through  nearly 
half  the  whole  history  of  his  country; 
and  that  on  the  morning  of  this  auspi 
cious  day  he  should  be  found  in  the 
political  councils  of  his  native  State,  re 
vising,  by  the  light  of  experience,  that 
system  of  government  wrhich  forty  years 
before  he  had  assisted  to  frame  and  es 
tablish;  and,  great  and  happy  as  he 
should  then  behold  his  country,  there 
should  be  nothing  in  prospect  to  cloud 
the  scene,  nothing  to  check  the  ardor  of 
that  confident  and  patriotic  hope  which 
should  glow  in  his  bosom  to  the  end  of 
his  long  protracted  and  happy  life. 

It  would  far  exceed  the  limits  of  this 
discourse  even  to  mention  the  principal 
events  in  the  civil  and  political  history 
of  New  England  during  the  century ;  the 
more  so,  as  for  the  last  half  of  the 
period  that  history  has,  most  happily, 
been  closely  interwoven  with  the  general 
history  of  the  United  States.  New  Eng 
land  bore  an  honorable  part  in  the  wars 
which  took  place  between  England  and 
France.  The  capture  of  Louisburg  gave 
her  a  character  for  military  achieve 
ment;  and  in  the  war  which  terminated 
•with  the  peace  of  1763,  her  exertions  on 
the  frontiers  were  of  most  essential  ser 


vice,  as  well  to  the  mother  country  as  to 
all  the  Colonies. 

In  New  England  the  war  of  the  Rev 
olution  commenced.  I  address  those 
who  remember  the  memorable  19th  of 
April,  1775;  who  shortly  after  saw  the 
burning  spires  of  Charlestown ;  who  be 
held  the  deeds  of  Prescott,  and  heard  the 
voice  of  Putnam  amidst  the  storm  of 
war,  and  saw  the  generous  Warren  fall, 
the  first  distinguished  victim  in  the 
cause  of  liberty.  It  would  be  superflu 
ous  to  say,  that  no  portion  of  the  coun 
try  did  more  than  the  States  of  New 
England  to  bring  the  Revolutionary 
struggle  to  a  successful  issue.  It  is 
scarcely  less  to  her  credit,  that  she  saw 
early  the  necessity  of  a  closer  union  of 
the  States,  and  gave  an  efficient  and  in 
dispensable  aid  to  the  establishment  and 
organization  of  the  Federal  government. 

Perhaps  we  might  safely  say,  that  a 
new  spirit  and  a  new  excitement  began  to 
exist  here  about  the  middle  of  the  last 
century.  To  whatever  causes  it  may 
be  imputed,  there  seems  then  to  have 
commenced  a  more  rapid  improvement. 
The  Colonies  had  attracted  more  of  the 
attention  of  the  mother  country,  and 
some  renown  in  arms  had  been  ac 
quired.  Lord  Chatham  was  the  first 
English  minister  who  attached  high  im 
portance  to  these  possessions  of  the 
crown,  and  who  foresaw  any  thing  of 
their  future  growth  and  extension.  His 
opinion  was,  that  the  great  rival  of  Eng 
land  was  chiefly  to  be  feared  as  a  mari 
time  and  commercial  power,  and  to 
drive  her  out  of  North  America  and  de 
prive  her  of  her  West  Indian  possessions 
was  a  leading  object  in  his  policy.  He 
dwelt  often  on  the  fisheries,  as  nurseries 
for  British  seamen,  and  the  colonial 
trade,  as  furnishing  them  employment. 
The  war,  conducted  by  him  with  so 
much  vigor,  terminated  in  a  peace,  by 
which  Canada  was  ceded  to  England. 
The  effect  of  this  was  immediately  visi 
ble  in  the  New  England  Colonies ;  for, 
the  fear  of  Indian  hostilities  on  the  fron 
tiers  being  now  happily  removed,  settle 
ments  went  on  with  an  activity  before 
that  time  altogether  unprecedented,  and 
public  affairs  wore  a  new  and  encour- 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


43 


aging  aspect.  Shortly  after  this  fortu 
nate  termination  of  the  French  war,  the 
interesting  topics  connected  with  the 
taxation  of  America  by  the  British  Par 
liament  began  to  be  discussed,  and  the 
attention  and  all  the  faculties  of  the 
people  drawn  towards  them.  There  is 
perhaps  no  portion  of  our  history  more 
full  of  interest  than  the  period  from 
1760  to  the  actual  commencement  of  the 
war.  The  progress  of  opinion  in  this 
period,  though  less  known,  is  not  less 
important  than  the  progress  of  arms 
afterwards.  Nothing  deserves  more  con 
sideration  than  those  events  and  discus 
sions  which  affected  the  public  sentiment 
and  settled  the  Revolution  in  men's 
minds,  before  hostilities  openly  broke 
out. 

Internal  improvement  followed  the  es 
tablishment  and  prosperous  commence 
ment  of  the  present  government.  More 
has  been  done  for  roads,  canals,  and 
other  public  works,  within  the  last  thirty 
years,  than  in  all  our  former  history. 
In  the  first  of  these  particulars,  few 
countries  excel  the  Xew  England  States. 
The  astonishing  increase  of  their  navi 
gation  and  trade  is  known  to  every  one, 
and  now  belongs  to  the  history  of  our 
national  wealth. 

We  may  flatter  ourselves,  too,  that 
literature  and  taste  have  not  been  sta 
tionary,  and  that  some  advancement  has 
been  made  in  the  elegant,  as  well  as  in 
the  useful  arts. 

The  nature  and  constitution  of  society 
and  government  in  this  country  are  in 
teresting  topics,  to  which  I  would  de 
vote  what  remains  of  the  time  allowed 
to  this  occasion.  Of  our  system  of  gov 
ernment  the  first  thing  to  be  said  is,  that 
it  is  really  and  practically  a  free  system. 
It  originates  entirely  with  the  people, 
and  rests  on  no  other  foundation  than 
their  assent.  To  judge  of  its  actual  op 
eration,  it  is  not  enough  to  look  merely 
at  the  form  of  it..-  construction.  The 
practical  character  of  government  de 
pends  often  on  a  variety  of  consider 
ations,  besides  the  abstract  frame  of 
its  constitutional  organization.  Among 
these  are  the  condition  and  tenure  of 


property ;  the  laws  regulating  its  aliena 
tion  and  descent ;  the  presence  or  absence 
of  a  military  power ;  an  armed  or  unarmed 
yeomanry;  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  the 
degree  of  general  intelligence.  In  these 
respects  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  cir 
cumstances  of  this  country  are  most 
favorable  to  the  hope  of  maintaining  the 
government  of  a  great  nation  on  princi 
ples  entirely  popular.  In  the  absence  of 
military  power,  the  nature  of  govern 
ment  must  essentially  depend  on  the 
manner  in  which  property  is  holden  and 
distributed.  There  is  a  natural  influ 
ence  belonging  to  property,  whether  it 
exists  in  many  hands  or  few ;  and  it  is 
on  the  rights  of  property  that  both  des 
potism  and  unrestrained  popular  violence 
ordinarily  commence  their  attacks.  Our 
ancestors  began  their  system  of  govern 
ment  here  under  a  condition  of  compar 
ative  equality  in  regard  to  wealth,  and 
their  early  laws  were  of  a  nature  to  favor 
and  continue  this  equality. 

A  republican  form  of  government  rests 
not  more  on  political  constitutions,  than 
on  those  laws  which  regulate  the  descent 
and  transmission  of  property.  Govern 
ments  like  ours  could  not  have  been 
maintained,  where  property  was  holden 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  feudal 
system;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  could 
the  feudal  constitution  possibly  exist 
with  us.  Our  New  England  ancestors 
brought  hither  no  great  capitals  from 
Europe;  and  if  they  had,  there  was 
nothing  productive  in  which  they  could 
have  been  invested.  They  left  behind 
them  the  whole  feudal  policy  of  the 
other  continent.  They  broke  away  at 
once  from  the  system  of  military  service 
established  in  the  Dark  Ages,  and  which 
continues,  down  even  to  the  present 
time,  more  or  less  to  affect  the  condi 
tion  of  property  all  over  Europe.  They 
came  to  a  new  country.  There  were,  as 
yet,  no  lands  yielding  rent,  and  no  ten 
ants  rendering  service.  The  whole  soil 
was  unreclaimed  from  barbarism.  They 
were  themselves,  either  from  their  origi 
nal  condition,  or  from  the  necessity  of 
their  common  interest,  nearly  on  a  gen 
eral  level  in  respect  to  property.  Their 
situation  demanded  a  parcelling  out  and 


44 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


division  of  the  lands,  and  it  may  be 
fairly  said,  that  this  necessary  act  fixed 
the  future  frame  and  form  of  their  gov 
ernment.  The  character  of  their  politi 
cal  institutions  was  determined  by  the 
fundamental  laws  respecting  property. 
The  laws  rendered  estates  divisible 
among  sons  and  daughters.  The  right 
of  primogeniture,  at  first  limited  and 
curtailed,  was  afterwards  abolished. 
The  property  was  all  freehold.  The 
entailment  of  estates,  long  trusts,  and 
the  other  processes  for  fettering  and  ty 
ing  up  inheritances,  were  not  applicable 
to  the  condition  of  society,  and  seldom 
made  use  of.  On  the  contrary,  aliena 
tion  of  the  land  was  every  way  facili 
tated,  even  to  the  subjecting  of  it  to 
every  species  of  debt.  The  establish 
ment  of  public  registries,  and  the  sim 
plicity  of  our  forms  of  conveyance,  have 
greatly  facilitated  the  change  of  real 
estate  from  one  proprietor  to  another. 
The  consequence  of  all  these  causes  has 
been  a  great  subdivision  of  the  soil,  and 
a  great  equality  of  condition;  the  true 
basis,  most  certainly,  of  a  popular  gov 
ernment.  "If  the  people,"  says  Har 
rington,  "hold  three  parts  in  four  of  the 
territory,  it  is  plain  there  can  neither 
be  any  single  person  nor  nobility  able  to 
dispute  the  government  with  them;  in 
this  case,  therefore,  except  force  be  inter 
posed,  they  govern  themselves." 

The  history  of  other  nations  may 
teach  us  how  favorable  to  public  liberty 
are  the  division  of  the  soil  into  small 
freeholds,  and  a  system  of  laws,  of  which 
the  tendency  is,  without  violence  or  in 
justice,  to  produce  and  to  preserve  a 
degree  of  equality  of  property.  It  has 
been  estimated,  if  I  mistake  not,  that 
about  the  time  of  Henry  the  Seventh 
four  fifths  of  the  land  in  England  was 
holden  by  the  great  barons  and  ecclesi 
astics.  The  effects  of  a  growing  com 
merce  soon  afterwards  began  to  break  in 
on  this  state  of  things,  and  before  the 
Revolution,  in  1G88,  a  vast  change  had 
been  wrought.  It  may  be  thought  prob 
able,  that,  for  the  last  half-century, 
the  process  of  subdivision  in  England 
has  been  retarded,  if  not  reversed;  that 
the  great  weight  of  taxation  has  com 


pelled  many  of  the  lesser  freeholders  to 
dispose  of  their  estates,  and  to  seek  em 
ployment  in  the  army  and  navy,  in  the 
professions  of  civil  life,  in  commerce,  or 
in  the  colonies.  The  effect  of  this  on 
the  British  constitution  cannot  but  be 
most  unfavorable.  A  few  large  estates 
grow  larger;  but  the  number  of  those 
who  have  no  estates  also  increases ;  and 
there  may  be  danger,  lest  the  inequality 
of  property  become  so  great,  that  those 
who  possess  it  may  be  dispossessed  by 
force;  in  other  words,  that  the  govern 
ment  may  be  overturned. 

A  most  interesting  experiment  of  the 
effect  of  a  subdivision  of  property  on 
government  is  now  making  in  France. 
It  is  understood,  that  the  law  regulat 
ing  the  transmission  of  property  in  that 
country,  now  divides  it,  real  and  per 
sonal,  among  all  the  children  equally, 
both  sons  and  daughters ;  and  that  there 
is,  also,  a  very  great  restraint  on  the 
power  of  making  dispositions  of  prop 
erty  by  will.  It  has  been  supposed,  that 
the  effects  of  this  might  probably  be,  in 
time,  to  break  up  the  soil  into  such  small 
subdivisions,  that  the  proprietors  would 
be  too  poor  to  resist  the  encroachments 
of  executive  power.  I  think  far  other 
wise.  What  is  lost  in  individual  wealth 
will  be  more  than  gained  in  numbers,  in 
intelligence,  and  in  a  sympathy  of  senti 
ment.  If,  indeed,  only  one  or  a  few 
landholders  were  to  resist  the  crown, 
like  the  barons  of  England,  they  must, 
of  course,  be  great  and  powerful  land 
holders,  with  multitudes  of  retainers,  to 
promise  success.  But  if  the  proprietors 
of  a  given  extent  of  territory  are  sum 
moned  to  resistance,  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  such  resistance  would  be 
less  forcible,  or  less  successful,  because 
the  number  of  such  proprietors  happened 
to  be  great.  Each  would  perceive  his 
own  importance,  and  his  own  interest, 
and  would  feel  that  natural  elevation  of 
character  which  the  consciousness  of 
property  inspires.  A  common  senti 
ment  would  unite  all,  and  numbers 
would  not  only  add  strength,  but  excite 
enthusiasm.  It  is  true,  that  France 
possesses  a  vast  military  force,  under 
the  direction  of  an  hereditary  executive 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


45 


government;  and  military  power,  it  is 
possible,  may  overthrow  any  govern 
ment.  It  is  in  vain,  however,  in  this 
period  of  the  world,  to  look  for  security 
against  military  power  to  the  arm  of  the 
great  landholders.  That  notion  is  de 
rived  from  a  state  of  things  long  since 
past;  a  state  in  which  a  feudal  baron, 
with  his  retainers,  might  stand  against 
the  sovereign  and  his  retainers,  him 
self  but  the  greatest  baron.  But  at 
present,  what  could  the  richest  land 
holder  do,  against  one  regiment  of  dis 
ciplined  troops?  Other  securities,  there 
fore,  against  the  prevalence  of  military 
power  must  be  provided.  Happily  for 
us,  we  are  not  so  situated  as  that  any 
purpose  of  national  defence  requires, 
ordinarily  and  constantly,  such  a  mili 
tary  force  as  might  seriously  endanger 
our  liberties. 

In  respect,  however,  to  the  recent  law 
of  succession  in  France,  to  which  I  have 
alluded,  I  would,  presumptuously  per 
haps,  hazard  a  conjecture,  that,  if  the 
government  do  not  change  the  law,  the 
law  in  half  a  century  will  change  the  gov 
ernment;  and  that  this  change  will  be, 
not  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  crown, 
as  some  European  writers  have  supposed, 
but  against  it.  Those  writers  only  rea 
son  upon  what  they  think  correct  general 
principles,  in  relation  to  this  subject. 
They  acknowledge  a  want  of  experience. 
Here  we  have  had  that  experience ;  and 
we  know  that  a  multitude  of  small  pro 
prietors,  acting  with  intelligence,  and 
that  enthusiasm  which  a  common  cause 
inspires,  constitute  not  only  a  formida 
ble,  but  an  invincible  power.1 

The  true  principle  of  a  free  and  popu 
lar  government  would  seem  to  be,  so  to 
construct  it  as  to  give  to  all,  or  at  least 
to  a  very  great  majority,  an  interest  in 
its  preservation;  to  found  it,  as  other 
things  are  founded,  on  men's  interest. 
The  stability  of  government  demands 
that  those  who  desire  its  continuance 
should  be  more  powerful  than  those  who 
desire  its  dissolution.  This  power,  of 
course,  is  not  always  to  be  measured  by 
mere  numbers.  Education,  wealth,  tal- 

1  See  note  B,  at  the  end  of  the  Discourse. 


ents,  are  all  parts  and  elements  of  the 
general  aggregate  of  power;  but  num 
bers,  nevertheless,  constitute  ordinarily 
the  most  important  consideration,  un 
less,  indeed,  there  be  a  military  force  in 
the  hands  of  the  few,  by  which  they  can 
control  the  many.  In  this  country  we 
have  actually  existing  systems  of  gov 
ernment,  in  the  maintenance  of  which, 
it  should  seem,  a  great  majority,  both 
in  numbers  and  in  other  means  of  power 
and  influence,  must  see  their  interest. 
But  this  state  of  things  is  not  brought 
about  solely  by  written  political  consti 
tutions,  or  the  mere  manner  of  organiz 
ing  the  government;  but  also  by  the 
laws  which  regulate  the  descent  and 
transmission  of  property.  The  freest 
government,  if  it  could  exist,  would 
not  be  long  acceptable,  if  the  tendency 
of  the  laws  were  to  create  a  rapid  accu 
mulation  of  property  in  few  hands,  and 
to  render  the  great  mass  of  the  popula 
tion  dependent  and  penniless.  In  such 
a  case,  the  popular  power  would  be  likely 
to  break  in  upon  the  rights  of  property, 
or  else  the  influence  of  property  to 
limit  and  control  the  exercise  of  popular 
power.  Universal  suffrage,  for  example, 
could  not  long  exist  in  a  community 
where  there  was  great  inequality  of 
property.  The  holders  of  estates  would 
be  obliged,  in  such  case,  in  some  way  to 
restrain  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  else 
such  right  of  suffrage  would,  before 
long,  divide  the  property.  In  the  na 
ture  of  things,  those  who  have  not  prop 
erty,  and  see  their  neighbors  possess 
much  more  than  they  think  them  to 
need,  cannot  be  favorable  to  lawrs  made 
for  the  protection  of  property.  When 
this  class  becomes  numerous,  it  grows 
clamorous.  It  looks  on  property  as  its 
prey  and  plunder,  and  is  naturally  ready, 
at  all  times,  for  violence  and  revolution. 
It  would  seem,  then,  to  be  the  part  of 
political  wisdom  to  found  government 
on  property;  and  to  establish  such  dis 
tribution  of  property,  by  the  laws  which 
regulate  its  transmission  and  alienation, 
as  to  interest  the  great  majority  of  soci 
ety  in  the  support  of  the  government. 
This  is,  I  imagine,  the  true  theory  and 
the  actual  practice  of  our  republican 


46 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


institutions.  With  property  divided  as 
we  have  it,  no  other  government  than 
that  of  a  republic  could  be  maintained, 
even  were  we  foolish  enough  to  desire 
it.  There  is  reason,  therefore,  'to  ex 
pect  a  long  continuance  of  our  system. 
Party  and  passion,  donbtless,  may  pre 
vail  at  times,  and  much  temporary  mis 
chief  be  done.  Even  modes  and  forms 
may  be  changed,  and  perhaps  for  the 
worse.  But  a  great  revolution  in  re 
gard  to.  property  must  take  place,  before 
our  governments  can  be  moved  from 
their  republican  basis,  unless  they  be 
violently  struck  off  by  military  power. 
The  people  possess  the  property,  more 
emphatically  than  it  could  ever  be  said 
of  the  people  of  any  other  country,  and 
they  can  have  no  interest  to  overturn  a 
government  which  protects  that  property 
by  equal  laws. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  that  this  state 
of  things  possesses  too  strong  tendencies 
towards  the  production  of  a  dead  and 
uninteresting  level  in  society.  Such 
tendencies  are  sufficiently  counteracted 
by  the  infinite  diversities  in  the  charac 
ters  and  fortunes  of  individuals.  Tal 
ent,  activity,  industry,  and  enterprise 
tend  at  all  times  to  produce  inequality 
and  distinction ;  and  there  is  room  still 
for  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  with  its 
great  advantages.,  to  all  reasonable  and 
useful  extent.  It  has  been  often  urged 
against  the  state  of  society  in  America, 
that  it  furnishes  no  class  of  men  of  for 
tune  and  leisure.  This  may  be  partly 
true,  but  it  is  not  entirely  so.  and  the 
evil,  if  it  be  one,  would  affect  rather  the 
progress  of  taste  and  literature,  than 
the  general  prosperity  of  the  people. 
But  the  promotion  of  taste  and  litera 
ture  cannot  be  primary  objects  of  politi 
cal  institutions;  and  if  they  could,  it 
might  be  doubted  whether,  in  the  long 
course  of  things,  as  much  is  not  gained 
by  a  wide  diffusion  of  general  knowl 
edge,  as  is  lost  by  diminishing  the  num 
ber  of  those  who  are  enabled  by  fortune 
and  leisure  to  devote  themselves  exclu 
sively  to  scientific  and  literary  pursuits. 
However  this  may  be,  it  is  to  be  con 
sidered  that  it  is  the  spirit  of  our  system 
to  be  equal  and  general,  and  if  there  be 


particular  disadvantages  incident  to  this, 
they  are  far  more  than  counterbalanced 
by  the  benefits  which  weigh  against 
them.  The  important  concerns  of  soci 
ety  are  generally  conducted,  in  all  coun 
tries,  by  the  men  of  business  and  practi 
cal  ability ;  and  even  in  matters  of  taste 
and  literature,  the  advantages  of  mere 
leisure  are  liable  to  be  overrated.  If 
there  exist  adequate  means  of  education 
and  a  love  of  letters  be  excited,  that 
love  will  find  its  way  to  the  object  of  its 
desire,  through  the  crowd  and  pressure 
of  the  most  busy  society. 

Connected  with  this  division  of  prop 
erty,  and  the  consequent  participation 
of  the  great  mass  of  people  in  its  pos 
session  and  enjoyments,  is  the  system  of 
representation,  which  is  admirably  ac 
commodated  to  our  condition,  better 
understood  among  us,  and  more  famil 
iarly  and  extensively  practised,  in  the 
higher  and  in  the  lower  departments  of 
government,  than  it  has  been  by  any 
other  people.  Great  facility  has  been 
given  to  this  in  New  England  by  the 
early  division  of  the  country  into  town 
ships  or  small  districts,  in  which  all 
concerns  of  local  police  are  regulated, 
and  in  which  representatives  to  the  leg 
islature  are  elected.  Nothing  can  ex 
ceed  the  utility  of  these  little  bodies. 
They  are  so  many  councils  or  parlia 
ments,  in  which  common  interests  are 
discussed,  and  useful  knowledge  ac 
quired  and  communicated. 

The  division  of  governments  into  de 
partments,  and  the  division,  again,  of 
the  legislative  department  into  two 
chambers,  are  essential  provisions  in  our 
system.  This  last,  although  not  new  in 
itself,  yet  seems  to  be  new  in  its  appli 
cation  to  governments  wholly  popular. 
The  Grecian  republics,  it  is  plain,  knew 
nothing  of  it;  and  in  Rome,  the  check 
and  balance  of  legislative  power,  such 
as  it  was,  lay  between  the  people  and 
the  senate.  Indeed,  few  things  are 
more  difficult  than  to  ascertain  accu 
rately  the  true  nature  and  construction 
of  the  Roman  commonwealth.  The 
relative  power  of  the  senate  and  the  peo 
ple,  of  the  consuls  and  the  tribunes, 
appears  not  to  have  been  at  all  times 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


47 


the  same,  nor  at  any  time  accurately 
defined  or  strictly  observed.  Cicero, 
indeed,  describes  to  us  an  admirable 
arrangement  of  political  power,  and  a 
balance  of  the  constitution,  in  that 
beautiful  passage,  in  which  he  compares 
the  democracies  of  Greece  with  the 
Roman  commonwealth.  "O  rnorem 
preclarum,  discipHnamque,  quam  a 
majoribus  accepimus,  si  quidem  tenere- 
mus!  sed  nescio  quo  pacto  jam  de  mani- 
bus  elabitur.  Nullam  enim  illi  nostri 
sapientissirni  et  sanctissimi  viri  vim 
concionis  esse  voluerunt,  quse  scisseret 
plebs,  aut  quse  populus  juberet;  sum- 
mota  concione,  distributis  partibus, 
tributim  et  centuriatim  descriptis  ordini- 
bus,  classibus,  setatibus,  auditis  auctori- 
bus,  re  multos  dies  promulgata  et  cognita, 
juberi  vetarique  voluerunt.  Grsecorum 
autem  totae  respublicae  sedentis  concio 
nis  terneritate  administrantur."  1 

But  at  what  time  this  wise  system 
existed  in  this  perfection  at  Rome,  no 
proofs  remain  to  show.  Her  constitu 
tion,  originally  framed  for  a  monarchy, 
never  seemed  to  be  adjusted  in  its  sev 
eral  parts  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings.  Liberty  there  was,  but  it  was  a 
disputatious,  an  uncertain,  an  ill-secured 
liberty.  The  patrician  and  plebeian 
orders,  instead  of  being  matched  and 
joined,  each  in  its  just  place  and  propor 
tion,  to  sustain  the  fabric  of  the  state, 
were  rather  like  hostile  powers,  in  per 
petual  conflict.  With  us,  an  attempt 
has  been  made,  and  so  far  not  without 
success,  to  divide  representation  into 
chambers,  and,  by  difference  of  age, 
character,  qualification,  or  mode  of  elec 
tion,  to  establish  salutary  checks,  in 
governments  altogether  elective. 

Having  detained  you  so  long  with 
these  observations,  I  must  yet  advert  to 
another  most  interesting  topic,  —  the 
Free  Schools.  In  this  particular,  New 
England  may  be  allowed  to  claim,  I 
think,  a  merit  of  a  peculiar  character. 
She  early  adopted,  and  has  constantly 
maintained  the  principle,  that  it  is  the 
undoubted  right  and  the  bounden  duty 

1  Oratio  pro  Flacco,  §  7. 


of  government  to  provide  for  the  in 
struction  of  all  youth.  That  which  is 
elsewhere  left  to  chance  or  to  charity, 
we  secure  by  law.2  For  the  purpose  of 
public  instruction,  we  hold  every  man 
subject  to  taxation  in  proportion  to  his 
property,  and  we  look  not  to  the  ques 
tion,  whether  he  himself  have,  or  have 
not,  children  to  be  benefited  by  the  edu 
cation  for  which  he  pays.  We  regard 
it  as  a  wise  and  liberal  system  of  police, 
by  which  property,  and  life,  and  the 
peace  of  society  are  secured.  We  seek 
to  prevent  in  some  measure  the  exten 
sion  of  the  penal  code,  by  inspiring  a 
salutary  and  conservative  principle  of 
virtue  and  of  knowledge  in  an  early  age. 
We  strive  to  excite  a  feeling  of  respect 
ability,  and  a  sense  of  character,  by 
enlarging  the  capacity  and  increasing 
the  sphere  of  intellectual  enjoyment. 
By  general  instruction,  we  seek,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  purify  the  whole  moral 
atmosphere;  to  keep  good  sentiments 
uppermost,  and  to  turn  the  strong  cur 
rent  of  feeling  and  opinion,  as  well  as 
the  censures  of  the  law  and  the  denun 
ciations  of  religion,  against  immorality 
and  crime.  We  hope  for  a  security 
beyond  the  law,  and  above  the  law,  in 
the  prevalence  of  an  enlightened  and 
well-principled  moral  sentiment.  We 
hope  to  continue  and  prolong  the  time, 
when,  in  the  villages  and  farm-houses 
of  New  England,  there  may  be  undis 
turbed  sleep  within  unbarred  doors. 
And  knowing  that  our  government  rests 
directly  on  the  public  will,  in  order  that 
we  may  preserve  it  we  endeavor  to  give 
a  safe  and  proper  direction  to  that  pub 
lic  will.  We  do  not,  indeed,  expect  all 
men  to  be  philosophers  or  statesmen; 

2  The  first  free  school  established  by  law  in 
the  Plymouth  Colony  was  in  1670-72.  One  of 
the  early  teachers  in  Boston  taught  school  more 
than  seventy  years.  See  Cotton  Mather's  "  Fu 
neral  Sermon  upon  Mr.  Ezekiel  Cheever,  the 
ancient  and  honorable  Master  of  the  Free  School 
in  Boston." 

For  the  impression  made  upon  the  mind  of 
an  intelligent  foreigner  by  the  general  attention 
to  popular  education,  as  characteristic  of  the 
American  polity,  see  Mackay's  Western  World, 
Vol.  III.  p.  225  et  seq.  Afso,  Edinburgh  Re 
view,  No.  186. 


48 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


but  we  confidently  trust,  and  our  ex 
pectation  of  the  duration  of  our  system 
of  government  rests  on  that  trust,  that, 
by  the  diffusion  of  general  knowledge 
and  good  and  virtuous  sentiments,  the 
political  fabric  may  be  secure,  as  well 
against  open  violence  and  overthrow,  as 
against  the  slow,  but  sure,  undermining 
of  licentiousness. 

We  know  that,  at  the  present  time, 
an  attempt  is  making  in  the  English 
Parliament  to  provide  by  law  for  the 
education  of  the  poor,  and  that  a  gen 
tleman  of  distinguished  character  (Mr. 
Brougham)  has  taken  the  lead  in  pre 
senting  a  plan  to  government  for  carry 
ing  that  purpose  into  effect.  And  yet, 
although  the  representatives  of  the  three 
kingdoms  listened  to  him  with  astonish 
ment  as  well  as  delight,  we  hear  no 
principles  with  which  we  ourselves  have 
not  been  familiar  from  youth;  we  see 
nothing  in  the  plan  but  an  approach 
towards  that  system  which  has  been  es 
tablished  in  New  England  for  more 
than  a  century  and  a  half.  It  is  said 
that  in  England  not  more  than  one  child 
in  fifteen  possesses  the  means  of  being 
taught  to  read  and  write;  in  Wales,  one 
in  twenty ;  in  France,  until  lately,  when 
some  improvement  was  made,  not  more 
than  one  in  thirty- five.  Now,  it  is  hardly 
too  strong  to  say,  that  in  New  England 
every  child  possesses  such  means.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  find  an  instance  to  the  con 
trary,  unless  where  it  should  be  owing 
to  the  negligence  of  the  parent;  and,  in 
truth,  the  means  are  actually  used  and 
enjoyed  by  nearly  every  one.  A  youth 
of  fifteen,  of  either  sex,  who  cannot 
both  read  and  write,  is  very  seldom  to 
be  found.  Who  can  make  this  compari 
son,  or  contemplate  this  spectacle,  with 
out  delight  and  a  feeling  of  just  pride? 
Does  any  histoiy  show  property  more 
beneficently  applied?  Did  any  govern 
ment  ever  subject  the  property  of  those 
who  have  estates  to  a  burden,  for  a  pur 
pose  more  favorable  to  the  poor,  or  more 
useful  to  the  whole  community  ? 

A  conviction  of  the  importance  of  pub 
lic  instruction  was  one  of  the  earliest 
sentiments  of  our  ancestors.  No  law 
giver  of  ancient  or  modern  times  has  ex 


pressed  more  just  opinions,  or  adopted 
wiser  measures,  than  the  early  records 
of  the  Colony  of  Plymouth  show  to  have 
prevailed  here.  Assembled  on  this  very 
spot,  a  hundred  and  fifty-three  years  ago, 
the  legislature  of  this  Colony  declared, 

Forasmuch  as  the  maintenance  of  good 
literature  doth  much  tend  to  the  advance 
ment  of  the  weal  and  flourishing  state  of 
societies  and  republics,  this  Court  doth 
therefore  order,  that  in  whatever  town 
ship  in  this  government,  consisting  of 
fifty  families  or  upwards,  any  meet  man 
shall  be  obtained  to  teach  a  grammar 
school,  such  township  shall  allow  at  least 
twelve  pounds,  to  be  raised  by  rate  on 
all  the  inhabitants." 

Having  provided  that  all  youth  should 
be  instructed  in  the  elements  of  learning 
by  the  institution  of  free  schools,  our 
ancestors  had  yet  another  duty  to  per 
form.  Men  were  to  be  educated  for  the 
professions  and  the  public.  For  this 
purpose  they  founded  the  University, 
and  with  incredible  zeal  and  persever 
ance  they  cherished  and  supported  it, 
through  all  trials  and  discouragements.1 
On  the  subject  of  the  University,  it  is 
not  possible  for  a  son  of  New  England 
to  think  without  pleasure,  or  to  speak 
without  emotion.  Nothing  confers  more 
honor  on  the  State  where  it  is  estab 
lished,  or  more  utility  on  the  country  at 
large.  A  respectable  university  is  an 
establishment  which  must  be  the  work 
of  time.  If  pecuniary  means  were  not 
wanting,  no  new  institution  could  pos 
sess  character  and  respectability  at  once. 
We  owe  deep  obligation  to  our  ances 
tors,  who  began,  almost  on  the  moment 
of  their  arrival,  the  work  of  building 
up  this  institution. 

Although  established  in  a  different 
government,  the  Colony  of  Plymouth 
manifested  warm  friendship  for  Har 
vard  College.  At  an  early  period,  its 
government  took  measures  to  promote  a 

1  By  a  law  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  passed  as  early  as  1647,  it  was  ordered, 
that,  "when  any  town  shall  increase  to  the 
number  of  one  hundred  families  or  household 
ers,  they  shall  set  up  a  grammar  school,  the 
master  thereof  being  able  to  instruct  youth  so 
far  as  they  may  be  lilted  for  the  University." 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


49 


general  subscription  throughout  all  the 
towns  in  this  Colony,  in  aid  of  its  small 
funds.  Other  colleges  were  subsequently 
founded  and  endowed,  in  other  places, 
as  the  ability  of  the  people  allowed;  and 
we  may  flatter  ourselves,  that  the  means 
of  education  at  present  enjoyed  in  New 
England  are  not  only  adequate  to  the 
diffusion  of  the  elements  of  knowledge 
among  all  classes,  but  sufficient  also  for 
respectable  attainments  in  literature  and 
the  sciences. 

Lastly,  our  ancestors  established  their 
system  of  government  on  morality  and 
religious  sentiment.  Moral  habits,  they 
believed,  cannot  safely  be  trusted  on  any 
other  foundation  than  religious  princi 
ple,  nor  any  government  be  secure  which 
is  not  supported  by  moral  habits.  Liv 
ing  under  the  heavenly  light  of  revela 
tion,  they  hoped  to  find  all  the  social 
dispositions,  all  the  duties  which  men 
owe  to  each  other  and  to  society,  en 
forced  and  performed.  Whatever  makes 
men  good  Christians,  makes  them  good 
citizens.  Our  fathers  came  here  to  en 
joy  their  religion  free  and  unmolested; 
and,  at  the  end  of  two  centuries,  there 
is  nothing  upon  which  we  can  pronounce 
more  confidently,  nothing  of  which  we 
can  express  a  more  deep  and  earnest  con 
viction,  than  of  the  inestimable  import 
ance  of  that  religion  to  man,  both  in  re 
gard  to  this  life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 

If  the  blessings  of  our  political  and 
social  condition  have  not  been  too  highly 
estimated,  we  cannot  well  overrate  the 
responsibility  and  duty  which  they  im 
pose  upon  us.  We  hold  these  institu 
tions  of  government,  religion,  and  learn 
ing,  to  be  transmitted,  as  well  as  enjoyed. 
We  are  in  the  line  of  conveyance,  through 
which  whatever  has  been  obtained  by  the 
spirit  and  efforts  of  our  ancestors  is  to  be 
communicated  to  our  children. 

We  are  bound  to  maintain  public  lib 
erty,  and,  by  the  example  of  our  own 
systems,  to  convince  the  world  that  or 
der  and  law,  religion  and  morality,  the 
rights  of  conscience,  the  rights  of  per 
sons,  and  the  rights  of  property,  may  all 
be  preserved  and  secured,  in  the  most 
perfect  manner,  by  a  government  en 


tirely  and  purely  elective.  If  we  fail  in 
this,  our  disaster  will  be  signal,  and  will 
furnish  an  argument,  stronger  than  has 
yet  been  found,  in  support  of  those  opin 
ions  which  maintain  that  government 
can  rest  safely  on  nothing  but  power 
and  coercion.  As  far  as  experience  may 
show  errors  in  our  establishments,  we 
are  bound  to  correct  them;  and  if  any 
practices  exist  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  justice  and  humanity  within  the  reach 
of  our  laws  or  our  influence,  we  are  in 
excusable  if  we  do  not  exert  ourselves  to 
restrain  and  abolish  them. 

I  deem  it  my  duty  on  this  occasion  to 
suggest,  that  the  land  is  not  yet  wholly 
free  from  the  contamination  of  a  traffic, 
at  which  every  feeling  of  humanity  must 
for  ever  revolt,  —  I  mean  the  African 
slave-trade.1  Neither  public  sentiment, 
nor  the  law,  has  hitherto  been  able  en 
tirely  to  put  an  end  to  this  odious  and 
abominable  trade.  At  the  moment  when 
God  in  his  mercy  has  blessed  the  Chris 
tian  world  with  a  universal  peace,  there 
is  reason  to  fear,  that,  to  the  disgrace  of 
the  Christian  name  and  character,  new 
efforts  are  making  for  the  extension  of 
this  trade  by  subjects  and  citizens  of 
Christian  states,  in  whose  hearts  there 
dwell  no  sentiments  of  humanity  or  of 
justice,  and  over  whom  neither  the  fear 
of  God  nor  the  fear  of  man  exercises  a 
control.  In  the  sight  of  our  law,  the 
African  slave-trader  is  a  pirate  and  a 
felon;  and  in  the  sight  of  Heaven,  an 
offender  far  beyond  the  ordinary  depth 
of  human  guilt.  There  is  no  brighter 
page  of  our  history,  than  that  which 
records  the  measures  which  have  been 
adopted  by  the  government  at  an  early 
day,  and  at  different  times  since,  for  the 
suppression  of  this  traffic ;  and  I  would 
call  on  all  the  true  sons  of  New  England 
to  co-operate  with  the  laws  of  man,  and 
the  justice  of  Heaven.  If  there  be,  with 
in  the  extent  of  our  knowledge  or  influ 
ence,  any  participation  in  this  traffic,  let 
us  pledge  ourselves  here,  upon  the  rock 
of  Plymouth,  to  extirpate  and  destroy  it 

1  In  reference  to  the  opposition  of  the  Colo 
nies  to  the  slave-trade,  see  a  representation  of 
the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  House  of  Lords,  23d 
January,  1733-4. 


50 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


It  is  not  fit  that  the  land  of  the  Pilgrims 
should  bear  the  shame  longer.  I  hear 
the  sound  of  the  hammer,  I  see  the 
smoke  of  the  furnaces  where  manacles 
and  fetters  are  still  forged  for  human 
limbs.  I  see  the  visages  of  those  who 
by  stealth  and  at  midnight  labor  in  this 
work  of  hell,  foul  and  dark,  as  may  be 
come  the  artificers  of  such  instruments 
of  misery  and  torture.  Let  that  spot  be 
purified,  or  let  it  cease  to  be  of  New 
England.  Let  it  be  purified,  or  let  it  be 
set  aside  from  the  Christian  world ;  let 
it  be  put  out  of  the  circle  of  human  sym 
pathies  and  human  regards,  and  let  civil 
ized  man  henceforth  have  no  communion 
with  it. 

I  would  invoke  those  who  fill  the  seats 
of  justice,  and  all  who  minister  at  her 
altar,  that  they  execute  the  wholesome 
and  necessary  severity  of  the  law.  I  in 
voke  the  ministers  of  our  religion,  that 
they  proclaim  its  denunciation  of  these 
crimes,  and  add  its  solemn  sanctions  to 
the  authority  of  human  laws.  If  the 
pulpit  be  silent  whenever  or  wherever 
there  may  be  a  sinner  bloody  with  this 
guilt  within  the  hearing  of  its  voice, 
the  pulpit  is  false  to  its  trust.  I  call  on 
the  fair  merchant,  who  has  reaped  his 
harvest  upon  the  seas,  that  he  assist 
in  scourging  from  those  seas  the  worst 
pirates  that  ever  infested  them.  That 
ocean,  which  seems  to  wave  with  a  gen 
tle  magnificence  to  waft  the  burden  of 
au  honest  commerce,  and  to  roll  along 
its  treasures  with  a  conscious  pride,  — 
that  ocean,  which  hardy  industry  re 
gards,  even  when  the  winds  have  ruffled 
its  surface,  as  a  field  of  grateful  toil,  — 
what  is  it  to  the  victim  of  this  oppres 
sion,  when  he  is  brought  to  its  shores, 
and  looks  forth  upon  it,  for  the  first 
time,  loaded  with  chains,  and  bleeding 
with  stripes?  What  is  it  to  him  but  a 
wide-spread  prospect  of  suffering,  an 
guish,  and  death?  Nor  do  the  skies 
smile  longer,  nor  is  the  air  longer  fra 
grant  to  him.  The  sun  is  cast  down 
from  heaven.  An  inhuman  and  accursed 
traffic  has  cut  him  off  in  his  manhood, 
or  in  his  youth,  from  every  enjoyment 
belonging  to  his  being,  and  every  bless 
ing  which  his  Creator  intended  for  him. 


The  Christian  communities  send  forth 
their  emissaries  of  religion  and  letters, 
who  stop,  here  and  there,  along  the  coast 
of  the  vast  continent  of  Africa,  and  with 
painful  and  tedious  efforts  make  some 
almost  imperceptible  progress  in  the 
communication  of  knowledge,  and  in 
the  general  improvement  of  the  natives 
who  are  immediately  about  them.  Not 
thus  slow  and  imperceptible  is  the  trans 
mission  of  the  vices  and  bad  passions 
which  the  subjects  of  Christian  states 
carry  to  the  land.  The  slave-trade  hav 
ing  touched  the  coast,  its  influence  and 
its  evils  spread,  like  a  pestilence,  over 
the  whole  continent,  making  savage 
wars  more  savage  and  more  frequent, 
and  adding  new  and  fierce  passions  to 
the  contests  of  barbarians.  y 

I  pursue  this  topic  no  further,  except 
again  to  say,  that  all  Christendom,  being 
now  blessed  with  peace,  is  bound  by 
every  thing  which  belongs  to  its  char 
acter,  and  to  the  character  of  the  pres 
ent  age,  to  put  a  stop  to  this  inhuman 
and  disgraceful  traffic. 

We  are  bound,  not  only  to  maintain 
the  general  principles  of  public  liberty, 
but  to  support  also  those  existing  forms 
of  government  which  have  so  well  se 
cured  its  enjoyment,  and  so  highly  pro 
moted  the  public  prosperity.  It  is  now 
more  than  thirty  years  that  these  States 
have  been  united  under  the  Federal  Con 
stitution,  and  whatever  fortune  may 
await  them  hereafter,  it  is  impossible 
that  this  period  of  their  history  should 
not  be  regarded  as  distinguished  by 
signal  prosperity  and  success.  They 
must  be  sanguine  indeed,  who  can  hope 
for  benefit  from  change.  Whatever 
division  of  the  public  judgment  may 
have  existed  in  relation  to  particular 
measures  of  the  government,  all  must 
agree,  one  should  think,  in  the  opinion, 
that  in  its  general  course  it  has  been 
eminently  productive  of  public  happi 
ness.  Its  most  ardent  friends  could  not 
well  have  hoped  from  it  more  than  it 
has  accomplished;  and  those  who  dis 
believed  or  doubted  ought  to  feel  less 
concern  about  predictions  which  the 
event  has  not  verified,  than  pleasure  in 
the  good  which  has  been  obtained. 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


51 


Whoever  shall  hereafter  write  this  part 
of  our  history,  although  he  may  see  oc 
casional  errors  or  defects,  will  be  able 
to  record  no  great  failure  in  the  ends 
and  objects  of  government.  Still  less 
will  he  be  able  to  record  any  series  of 
lawless  and  despotic  acts,  or  any  success 
ful  usurpation.  His  page  will  contain 
no  exhibition  of  provinces  depopulated, 
of  civil  authority  habitually  trampled 
down  by  military  power,  or  of  a  com 
munity  crushed  by  the  burden  of  taxa 
tion.  He  will  speak,  rather,  of  public 
liberty  protected,  and  public  happiness 
advanced;  of  increased  revenue,  and 
population  augmented  beyond  all  exam 
ple;  of  the  growth  of  commerce,  manu 
factures,  and  the  arts;  and  of  that  happy 
condition,  in  which  the  restraint  and  co 
ercion  of  government  are  almost  invisible 
and  imperceptible,  and  its  influence  felt 
only  in  the  benefits  which  it  confers. 
We  can  entertain  no  better  wish  for  our 
country,  than  that  this  government  may 
be  preserved;  nor  have  a  clearer  duty 
than  to  maintain  and  support  it  in  the 
full  exercise  of  all  its  just  constitutional 
powers. 

The  cause  of  science  and  literature 
also  imposes  upon  us  an  important  and 
delicate  trust.  The  wealth  and  popu 
lation  of  the  country  are  now  so  far 
advanced,  as  to  authorize  the  exepctation 
of  a  correct  literature  and  a  well  formed 
taste,  as  well  as  respectable  progress  in 
the  abstruse  sciences.  The  country  has 
risen  from  a  state  of  colonial  subjection ; 
it  has  established  an  independent  gov 
ernment,  and  is  now  in  the  undisturbed 
enjoyment  of  peace  and  political  security. 
The  elements  of  knowledge  are  univer 
sally  diffused,  and  the  reading  portion 
of  the  community  is  large.  Let  us  hope 
that  the  present  may  be  an  auspicious 
era  of  literature.  If,  almost  on  the  day 
of  their  landing,  our  ancestors  founded 
schools  and  endowed  colleges,  what  obli 
gations  do  not  rest  upon  us,  living  under 
circumstances  so  much  more  favorable 
both  for  providing  and  for  using  the 
means  of  education?  Literature  be 
comes  free  institutions.  It  is  the  grace 
ful  ornament  of  civil  liberty,  and  a 
happy  restraint  on  the  asperities  which 


political  controversies  sometimes  occa 
sion.  Just  taste  is  not  only  an  embel 
lishment  of  society,  but  it  rises  almost 
to  the  rank  of  the  virtues,  and  diffuses 
positive  good  throughout  the  whole  ex 
tent  of  its  influence.  There  is  a  con 
nection  between  right  feeling  and  right 
principles,  and  truth  in  taste  is  allied 
with  truth  in  morality.  With  nothing 
in  our  past  history  to  discourage  us,  and 
with  something  in  our  present  condition 
and  prospects  to  animate  us,  let  us  hope, 
that,  as  it  is  our  fortune  to  live  in  an 
age  when  we  may  behold  a  wonderful 
advancement  of  the  country  in  all  its 
other  great  interests,  we  may  see  also 
equal  progress  and  success  attend  the 
cause  of  letters. 

Finally,  let  us  not  forget  the  religious 
character  of  our  origin.  Our  fathers 
were  brought  hither  by  their  high  vener 
ation  for  the  Christian  religion.  They 
journeyed  by  its  light,  and  labored  in  its 
hope.  They  sought  to  incorporate  its 
principles  with  the  elements  of  their 
society,  and'  to  diffuse  its  influence 
through  all  their  institutions,  civil,  po 
litical,  or  literary.  Let  us  cherish  these 
sentiments,  and  extend  this  influence 
still  more  widely;  in  the  full  conviction, 
that  that  is  the  happiest  society  which 
partakes  in  the  highest  degree  of  the 
mild  and  peaceful  spirit  of  Christianity. 

The  hours  of  this  day  are  rapidly 
flying,  and  this  occasion  will  soon  be 
passed.  Neither  we  nor  our  children 
can  expect  to  behold  its  return.  They 
are  in  the  distant  regions  of  futurity, 
they  exist  only  in  the  all-creating  power 
of  God,  who  shall  stand  here  a  hundred 
years  hence,  to  trace,  through  us,  their 
descent  from  the  Pilgrims,  and  to  sur 
vey,  as  we  have  now  surveyed,  the  prog 
ress  of  their  country,  during  the  lapse 
of  a  century.  We  would  anticipate  their 
concurrence  wTith  us  in  our  sentiments  of 
deep  regard  for  our  common  ancestors. 
We  would  anticipate  and  partake  the 
pleasure  with  which  they  will  then  re 
count  the  steps  of  New  England's  ad 
vancement.  On  the  morning  of  that 
day,  although  it  will  not  disturb  us  in 
our  repose,  the  voice  of  acclamation 
and  gratitude,  commencing  on  the  Rock 


52 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT   OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


of  Plymouth,  shall  be  transmitted 
through  millions  of  the  sons  of  the 
Pilgrims,  till  it  lose  itself  in  the  mur 
murs  of  the  Pacific  seas. 

We  would  leave  for  the  consideration 
of  those  who  shall  then  occupy  our 
places,  some  proof  that  we  hold  the 
blessings  transmitted  from  our  fathers 
in  just  estimation;  some  proof  of  our 
attachment  to  the  cause  of  good  govern 
ment,  and  of  civil  and  religious  liberty; 
some  proof  of  a  sincere  and  ardent  de 
sire  to  promote  every  thing  which  may 
enlarge  the  understandings  and  improve 
the  hearts  of  men.  And  when,  from 
the  long  distance  of  a  hundred  years, 
they  shall  look  back  upon  us,  they  shall 
know,  at  least,  that  we  possessed  affec 
tions,  which,  running  backward  and 
warming  with  gratitude  for  what  our 
ancestors  have  done  for  our  happiness, 
run  forward  also  to  our  posterity,  and 
meet  them  with  cordial  salutation,  ere  yet 
they  have  arrived  on  the  shore  of  being. 


Advance,  then,  ye  future  generations! 
We  would  hail  you,  as  you  rise  in  your 
long  succession,  to  fill  the  places  which 
we  now  fill,  and  to  taste  the  blessings  of 
existence  where  we  are  passing,  and  soon 
shall  have  passed,  our  own  human  dura 
tion.  We  bid  you  welcome  to  this 
pleasant  land  of  the  fathers.  We  bid 
you  welcome  to  the  healthful  skies  and 
the  verdant  fields  of  New  England.  We 
greet  your  accession  to  the  great  in 
heritance  which  we  have  enjoyed.  We 
welcome  you  to  the  blessings  of  good 
government  and  religious  liberty.  We 
welcome  you  to  the  treasures  of  science 
and  the  delights  of  learning.  We  wel 
come  you  to  the  transcendent  sweets  of 
domestic  life,  to  the  happiness  of  kin 
dred,  and  parents,  and  children.  We 
welcome  you  to  the  immeasurable  bless 
ings  of  rational  existence,  the  immortal 
hope  of  Christianity,  and  the  light  of 
everlasting  truth! 


NOTES. 


NOTE  A.— PAGE  27. 

THE  allusion  in  the  Discourse  is  to  the 
large  historical  painting  of  the  Landing 
of  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  executed  by 
Henry  Sargent,  Esq.,  of  Boston,  and,  with 
great  liberality,  presented  by  him  to  the 
Pilgrim  Society.  It  appeared  in  their  hall 
(of  which  it  forms  the  chief  ornament)  for 
the  first  time  at  the  celebration  of  1824.  It 
represents  the  principal  personages  of  the 
company  at  the  moment  of  landing,  with 
the  Indian  Samoset,  who  approaches  them 
with  a  friendly  welcome.  A  very  competent 
judge,  himself  a  distinguished  artist,  the 
late  venerable  Colonel  Trumbull,  has  pro 
nounced  that  this  painting  has  great  merit. 
An  interesting  account  of  it  will  be  found 
in  Dr.  Thacher's  History  of  Plymouth,  pp. 
249  and  257. 

An  historical  painting,  by  Robert  N.  Weir, 
Esq.,  of  the  largest  size,  representing  the 
embarkation  of  the  Pilgrims  from  Delft- 
Haven,  in  Holland,  and  executed  by  order 
of  Congress,  fills  one  of  the  panels  of  the 
Rotunda  of  the  Capitol  at  Washington.  The 
moment  chosen  by  the  artist  for  the  action 
of  the  picture  is  that  in  which  the  venerable 


pastor  Robinson,  with  tears,  and  benedic 
tions,  and  prayers  to  Heaven,  dismisses  the 
beloved  members  of  his  little  flock  to  the 
perils  and  the  hopes  of  their  great  enter 
prise.  The  characters  of  the  personages 
introduced  are  indicated  with  discrimina 
tion  and  power,  and  the  accessories  of  the 
work  marked  with  much  taste  and  skill.  It 
is  a  painting  of  distinguished  historical  in 
terest  and  of  great  artistic  merit. 

The  "Landing  of  the  Pilgrims  "  has  also 
been  made  the  subject  of  a  very  interesting 
painting  by  Mr.  Flagg,  intended  to  repre 
sent  the  deep  religious  feeling  which  so 
strikingly  characterized  the  first  settlers  of 
New  England.  With  this  object  in  view, 
the  central  figure  is  that  of  Elder  Brewster. 
It  is  a  picture  of  cabinet  size,  and  is  in  pos 
session  of  a  gentleman  of  New  Haven,  de 
scended  from  Elder  Brewster,  and  of  that 
name. 

NOTE  B.  —  PAGE  46. 

As  the  opinion  of  contemporaneous  think 
ers  on  this  important  subject  cannot  fail 
to  interest  the  general  reader,  it  is  deemed 
proper  to  insert  here  the  following  extract 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


53 


from  a  letter,  written  in  1849,  to  show  how 
powerfully  the  truths  uttered  in  1820,  in 
the  spirit  of  prophecy,  as  it  were,  impressed 
themselves  upon  certain  minds,  and  how 
closely  the  verification  of  the  prediction  has 
been  watched. 

"I  do  not  remember  any  political  prophecy, 
founded  on  the  spirit  of  a  wide  and  far-reaching 
statesmanship,  that  has  been  so  remarkably  ful 
filled  as  the  one  made  by  Mr.  Webster,  in  his 
Discourse  delivered  at  Plymouth  in  1820,  on  the 
effect  which  the  laws  of  succession  to  property 
in  France,  then  in  operation,  would  be  likely  to 
produce  on  the  forms  and  working  of  the  French 
government.  But  to  understand  what  he  said, 
and  what  he  foresaw,  I  must  explain  a  little 
what  had  been  the  course  of  legislation  in  France 
on  which  his  predictions  were  founded. 

"  Before  the  Revolution  of  1789,  there  had 
been  a  great  accumulation  of  the  landed  prop 
erty  of  the  country,  and,  indeed,  of  all  its  prop 
erty, —  bv  means  of  laws  of  entail,  majorats, 
and  other  legal  contrivances,  —  in  the  hands  of 
the  privileged  classes;  chiefly  in  those  of  the  no 
bility  and  the  clergy.  The  injury  and  injustice 
done  by  long  continued  legislation  in  this  direc 
tion  were  obviously  great ;  and  it  was  not,  per 
haps,  unnatural,  that  the  opposite  course  to  that 
which  had  brought  on  the  mischief  should  be 
deemed  the  best  one  to  cure  it.  At  any  rate, 
such  was  the  course  taken. 

"  In  1791  a  law  was  passed,  preventing  any 
man  from  having  any  interest  beyond  the  period 
of  his  own  life  in  any  of  his  property,  real,  per 
sonal,  or  mixed,  and  distributing  all  his  posses 
sions  for  him,  immediately  after  his  death,  among 
his  children,  in  equal  shares,  or  if  he  left  no  chil 
dren,  then  among  his  next  of  kin,  on  the  same 
principle.  This  law,  with  a  slight  modifica 
tion,  made  under  the  influence  of  Robespierre, 
was  in  force  till  1800.  But  the  period  was  en 
tirely  revolutionary,  and  probably  quite  as  much 
property  changed  hands  from  violence  and  the 
consequences  of  violence,  during  the  nine  years 
it  continued,  as  was  transmitted  by  the  laws 
that  directly  controlled  its  succession. 

"  With  the  coming  in  of  Bonaparte,  however, 
there  was  established  a  new  order  of  things, 
which  has  continued,  with  little  modification, 
ever  since,  and  has  had  its  full  share  in  working 
out  the  great  changes  in  French  society  which 
we  now  witness.  A  few  experiments  were  first 
made,  and  then  the  great  Civil  Code,  often  called 
the  Code  Napoleon,  was  adopted.  This  was  in 
1804.  By  this  remarkable  code,  which  is  still 
in  force,  a  man,  if  he  has  but  one  child,  can  give 
away  by  his  last  will,  as  he  pleases,  half  of  his 
property, — the  law  insuring  the  other  half  to 
the  child ;  if  he  has  two  children,  then  he  can 
so  give  away  only  one  third,  —  the  law  requir 
ing  the  other  two  thirds  to  be  given  equally  to 
the  two  children ;  if  three,  then  only  one  fourth 
under  similar  conditions ;  but  if  he  has  a  greater 
number,  it  restricts  the  rights  of  the  parent  more 
and  more,  and  makes  it  more  and  more  difficult 
for  him  to  distribute  his  property  according  to 
his  own  judgment ;  the  restrictions  embarrassing 
him  even  in  his  lifetime. 

41  The  consequences  of  such  laws  are,  from 
their  nature,  very  slowly  developed.  When  Mr. 
Webster  spoke  in  1820,  the  French  code  had 
been  in  operation  sixteen  years,  and  similar 
principles  had  prevailed  for  nearly  a  genera 


tion.  But  still  its  wide  results  were  not  even 
suspected.  Those  who  had  treated  the  subject 
at  all  supposed  that  the  tendency  was  to  break 
up  the  great  estates  in  France,  and  make  the 
larger  number  of  the  holders  of  small  estates 
more  accessible  to  the  influence  of  the  govern 
ment,  then  a  limited  monarchy,  and  so  render 
it  stronger  and  more  despotic.  * 

"Mr.  Webster  held  a  different  opinion.  He 
said,  '  In  respect,  however,  to  the  recent  law  of 
succession  in  France,  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
/  would,  presumptuously  perhaps,  hazard  a  con 
jecture,  that,  if  the  government  do  not  change 
the  law,  the  law  in  half  a  century  will  change 
the  government;  and  that  this  change  will  be, 
not  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  crown,  as  some 
European  writers  have  supj)osed,  but  against 
it.  Those  writers  only  reason  upon  what  they 
think  correct  general  principles,  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  They  acknowledge  a  want  of 
experience.  Here  we  have  had  that  experi 
ence;  and  we  know  that  a  multitude  of  small 
proprietors,  acting  with  intelligence,  and  that 
enthusiasm  which  a  common  cause  inspires, 
constitute  not  only  a  formidable,  but  an  in 
vincible  power.' 

"  In  less  than  six  years  after  Mr.  Webster 
uttered  this  remarkable  prediction,  the  king  of 
France  himself,  at  the  opening  of  the  Legislative 
Chambers,  thus  strangely  echoed  it :  —  '  Legis 
lation  ought  to  provide,  by  successive  improve 
ments,  for  all  the  wants  of  society.  The  pro 
gressive  partitioning  of  landed  estates,  essen 
tially  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  a  monarchical 
government,  "would  enfeeble  the  guaranties 
which  the  charter  has  given  to  my  throne  and 
to  my  subjects.  Measures  will  be  proposed  to 
you,"  gentlemen,  to  establish  the  consistency 
which  ought  to  exist  between  the  political  law 
and  the  civil  law,  and  to  preserve  the  patri 
mony  of  families,  without  restricting  the  liberty 
of  disposing  of  one's  property.  The  preserva 
tion  of  families  is  connected  with,  and  affords  a 
guaranty  to,  political  stability,  which  is  the  first 
want  of  states,  and  which  is  especially  that  of 
France,  after  so  many  vicissitudes.' 

"Still,  the  results *to  which  such  subdivision 
and  comminution  of  property  tended  were  not 
foreseen  even  in  France.  The  Revolution  of 
1830  came,  and  revealed  a  part  of  them ;  for 
that  revolution  was  made  by  the  influence  of 
men  possessing  very  moderate  estates,  who  be 
lieved  that  the  guaranties  of  a  government  like 
that  of  the  elder  branch  of  the  Bourbons  were 
not  sufficient  for  their  safety.  But  when  the 
revolution  was  made,  and  the  younger  branch 
of  the  Bourbons  reigned  instead  of  the  elder, 
the  laws  for  the  descent  of  property  continued 
to  be  the  same,  and  the  subdivision  went  on  as 
if  it  were  an  admitted  benefit  to  society. 

"In  consequence  of  this,  in  1844  it  was  found 
that  there  were  in  France  at  least  five  millions 
and  a  half  of  families,  or  about  twenty-seven 
millions  of  souls,  who  were  proprietary  families, 
and  that  of  these  about  four  millions  of  families 
had  each  less  than  nine  English  acres  to  the 
family  on  the  average.  Of  course,  a  vast  ma 
jority  of  these  twenty-seven  millions  of  persons, 
though  they  might  be  interested  in  some  small 
portion  of  the  soil,  were  really  poor,  and  multi 
tudes  of  them  were  dependent. 

"  Now,  therefore,  the  results  began  to  appear 
in  a  practical  form.  One  third  of  all  the  rental 
of  France  was  discovered  to  be  absolutely  mort 
gaged,  and  another  third  was  swallowed  up  by 


54 


FIRST   SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


other  encumbrances,  leaving  but  one  third  free 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  its  owners.  In  other 
words,  a  great  proportion  of  the  people  of  France 
were  embarrassed  and  poor,  and  a  great  propor 
tion  of  the  remainder  were  fast  becoming  so. 

"Such  a  state  of  things  produced,  of  course, 
a  wide-spread  social  uneasiness.  Part  of  this 
uneasiness  was  directed  against  the  existing 
government;  another  and  more  formidable  por 
tion  was  directed  against  all  government,  and 
against  the  very  institution  of  property.  The 
convulsion  of  1848  followed;  France  is  still 


unsettled;  and  Mr.  Webster's  prophecy  seems 
still  to  be  in  the  course  of  a  portentous  fulfil 
ment." 

In  the  London  Quarterly  Review  for  1846 
there  is  anwnteresting  discussion  on  so  much 
of  the  matter  as  relates  to  the  subdivision 
of  real  estate  for  agricultural  purposes  in 
France,  as  far  as:it  had  then  advanced,  and 
from  which  many  of  the  facts  here  alluded 
to  are  taken. 


DEFENCE    OF    JUDGE    JAMES    PRESCOTT. 


THE  CLOSING  APPEAL  TO  THE  ^SjENATE_OF^  MASSACHUSETTS,  IN  MR.  WEB 
STER'S  "ARGUMENT  ON  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  JAMES^ PRESCOTT,"  APRIL 
24TH,  1821. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  the  case  is  closed! 
The  fate  of  the  respondent  is  in  your 
hands.  It  is  for  you  now  to  say,  whether, 
from  the  law  and  the  facts  as  they  have 
appeared  before  you,  you  will  proceed  to 
disgrace  and  disfranchise  him.  If  your 
duty  calls  on  you  to  convict  him,  let  jus 
tice  be  done,  and  convict  him;  but,  I 
adjure  you,  let  it  be  a  clear,  undoubted 
case.  Let  it  be  so  for  his  sake,  for  you 
are  robbing  him  of  that  for  which,  with 
all  your  high  powers,  you  can  yield  him 
no  compensation ;  let  it  be  so  for  your 
own  sakes,  for  the  responsibility  of  this 
day's  judgment  is  one  which  you  must 
carry  with  you  through  life.  For  my 
self,  I  am  willing  here  to  relinquish  the 
character  of  an  advocate,  and  to  express 
opinions  by  which  I  am  prepared  to  be 
bound  as  a  citizen  and  a  man.  And  I 
say  upon  my  honor  and  conscience,  that 
I  see  not  how,  with  the  law  and  consti 
tution  for  your  guides,  you  can  pro 
nounce  the  respondent  guilty.  I  declare 
that  I  have  seen  no  case  of  wilful  and 
corrupt  official  misconduct,  set  forth  ac 
cording  to  the  requisitions  of  the  con 
stitution,  and  proved  according  to  the 
common  rules  of  evidence.  I  see  many 
things  imprudent  and  ill-judged ;  many 
things  that  I  could  wish  had  been  other 
wise  ;  but  corruption  and  crime  I  do  not 
see. 

Sir,  the  prejudices  of  the  day  will 
soon  be  forgotten;  the  passions,  if  any 
there  be,  which  have  excited  or  favored 
this  prosecution  will  subside ;  but  the  con 
sequence  of  the  judgment  you  are  about 
to  render  will  outlive  both  them  and 


you.  The  respondent  is  now  brought, 
a  single,  unprotected  individual,  to  this 
formidable  bar  of  judgment,  to  stand 
against  the  power  and  authority  of  the 
State.  I  know  you  can  crush  him,  as 
he  stands  before  you,  and  clothed  as  you 
are  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  State. 
You  have  the  power  "  to  change  his 
countenance  and  to  send  him  away." 
Nor  do  I  remind  you,  that  your  judg 
ment  is  to  be  rejudged  by  the  commu 
nity;  and,  as  you  have  summoned  him 
for  trial  to  this  high  tribunal,  that  you 
are  soon  to  descend  yourselves  from  these 
seats  of  justice,  and  stand  before  the 
higher  tribunal  of  the  world.  I  would 
not  fail  so  much  in  respect  to  this  hon 
orable  court  as  to  hint  that  it  could  pro 
nounce  a  sentence  which  the  community 
will  reverse.  No,  Sir,  it  is  not  the 
world's  revision  which  I  would  call  on 
you  to  regard;  but  that  of  your  own 
consciences,  when  years  have  gone  by 
and  you  shall  look  back  on  the  sentence 
you  are  about  to  render.  If  you  send 
away  the  respondent,  condemned  and 
sentenced,  from  your  bar,  you  are  yet 
to  meet  him  in  the  world  on  which  you 
cast  him  out.  You  will  be  called  to  be 
hold  him  a  disgrace  to  his  family,  a 
sorrow  and  a  shame  to  his  children,  a 
living  fountain  of  grief  and  agony  to 
himself. 

If  you  shall  then  be  able  to  behold 
him  only  as  an  unjust  judge,  whom  ven 
geance  has  overtaken  and  justice  has 
blasted,  you  will  be  able  to  look  upon 
him,  not  without  pity,  but  yet  without 
remorse.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you 


56 


DEFENCE  OF  JUDGE  JAMES  PRESCOTT. 


shall  see,  whenever  and  wherever  you 
meet  him,  a  victim  of  prejudice  or  of 
passion,  a  sacrifice  to  a  transient  excite 
ment  ;  if  you  shall  see  in  him  a  man  for 
whose  condemnation  any  provision  of 
the  constitution  has  been  violated  or  any 
principle  of  law  broken  down,  then  will 
he  be  able,  humble  and  low  as  may  be 
his  condition,  then  will  he  be  able  to 
turn  the  current  of  compassion  back 
ward,  and  to  look  with  pity  on  those 
who  have  been  his  judges.  If  you  are 
about  to  visit  this  respondent  with  a 
judgment  which  shall  blast  his  house;  if 
the  bosoms  of  the  innocent  and  the  ami 
able  are  to  be  made  to  bleed  under  your 
infliction,  I  beseech  you  to  be  able  to 
state  clear  and  strong  grounds  for  your 
proceeding.  Prejudice  and  excitement 
are  transitory,  and  will  pass  away.  Po 
litical  expediency,  in  matters  of  judica 
ture,  is  a  false  and  hollow  principle,  and 
will  never  satisfy  the  conscience  of  him 
who  is  fearful  that  he  may  have  given  a 
hasty  judgment.  I  earnestly  entreat 
you,  for  your  own  sakes,  to  possess  your 
selves  of  solid  reasons,  founded  in  truth 
and  justice,  for  the  judgment  you  pro 
nounce,  which  you  can  carry  with  you 
till  you  go  down  into  your  graves ;  rea 
sons  which  it  will  require  no  argument 
to  revive,  no  sophistry,  no  excitement, 
no  regard  to  popular  favor,  to  render  sat 
isfactory  to  your  consciences;  reasons 
which  you  can  appeal  to  in  every  crisis 
of  your  lives,  and  which  shall  be  able  to 
assure  you,  in  your  own  great  extremity, 
that  you  have  not  judged  a  fellow-crea 
ture  without  mercy. 

Sir,  I  have  done  with  the  case  of  this 
individual,  and  now  leave  it  in  your 
hands.  But  I  would  yet  once  more  ap 
peal  to  you  as  public  men ;  as  statesmen ; 
as  men  of  enlightened  minds,  capable  of 
a  large  view  of  things,  and  of  foreseeing 


the  remote  consequences  of  important 
transactions;  and,  as  such,  I  would  most 
earnestly  implore  you  to  consider  fully  of 
the  judgment  you  may  pronounce.  'You 
are  about* to  give  a  construction  to  con 
stitutional  provisions  which  may  adhere 
to  that  instrument  for  ages,  either  for 
good  or  evil.  I  may  perhaps  overrate 
the  importance  of  this  occasion  to  the 
public  welfare ;  but  I  confess  it  does  ap 
pear  to  me  that,  if  this  body  give  its 
sanction  to  some  of  the  principles  which 
have  been  advanced  on  this  occasion, 
then  there  is  a  power  in  the  State  above 
the  constitution  and  the  law ;  a  power 
essentially  arbitrary  and  despotic,  the 
exercise  of  which  may  be  most  danger 
ous.  If  impeachment  be  not  under  the 
rule  of  the  constitution  and  the  laws, 
then  may  we  tremble,  not  only  for  those 
who  may  be  impeached,  but  for  all 
others.  If  the  full  benefit  of  every  con 
stitutional  provision  be  not  extended  to 
the  respondent,  his  case  becomes  the 
case  of  all  the  people  of  the  Common 
wealth.  The  constitution  is  their  con 
stitution.  They  have  made  it  for  their 
own  protection,  and  for  his  among  the 
rest.  They  are  not  eager  for  his  convic 
tion.  They  desire  not  his  ruin.  If  he 
be  condemned,  without  having  his  of 
fences  set  forth  in  the  manner  which 
they,  by  their  constitution,  have  pre 
scribed,  and  in  the  manner  which  they, 
by  their  laws,  have  ordained,  then  not 
only  is  he  condemned  unjustly,  but  the 
rights  of  the  whole  people  are  disre 
garded.  For  the  sake  of  the  people 
themselves,  therefore,  I  would  resist  all 
attempts  to  convict  by  straining  the  laws 
or  getting  over  their  prohibitions.  I 
hold  up  before  him  the  broad  shield  of 
the  constitution;  if  through  that  he  be 
pierced  and  fall,  he  will  be  but  one  suf 
ferer  in  a  common  catastrophe. 


THE    REVOLUTION    IN    GREECE. 

A    SPEECH    DELIVERED    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES    OF    THE 
UNITED    STATES,   ON    THE  19TH   OF   JANUARY,  1824. 


[  THE  rise  and  progress  of  the  revolution 
in  Greece  attracted  great  attention  in  the 
United  States.  Many  obvious  causes  con 
tributed  to  this  effect,  and  their  influence 
was  seconded  by  the  direct  appeal  made  to 
the  people  of  America,  by  the  first  political 
body  organized  in  Greece  after  the  breaking 
out  of  the  revolution,  viz.  "  The  Messenian 
Senate  of  Calamata."  A  formal  address 
was  made  by  that  body  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  forwarded  by  their  com 
mittee  (of  which  the  celebrated  Koray  was 
chairman),  to  a  friend  and  correspondent  in 
this  country.  This  address  was  translated 
and  widely  circulated ;  but  it  was  not  to  be 
expected  that  any  great  degree  of  confi 
dence  should  be  at  once  generally  felt  in  a 
movement  undertaken  against  such  formi 
dable  odds. 

The  progress  of  events,  however,  in  1822 
and  1823,  was  such  as  to  create  an  impres 
sion  that  the  revolution  in  Greece  had  a  sub 
stantial  foundation  in  the  state  of  affairs, 
in  the  awakened  spirit  of  that  country,  and 
in  the  condition  of  public  opinion  through 
out  Christendom.  The  interest  felt  in  the 
struggle  rapidly  increased  in  the  United 
States.  Local  committees  were  formed, 
animated  appeals  were  made,  and  funds 
collected,  with  a  view  to  the  relief  of  the 
victims  of  the  war. 

On  the  assembling  of  Congress,  in  Decem 
ber,  1823,  President  Monroe  made  the  revo 
lution  in  Greece  the  subject  of  a  paragraph 
in  his  annual  message,  and  on  the  8th  of 
December  Mr.  Webster  moved  the  follow 
ing  resolution  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  provision  ought  to  be 
made,  by  law,  for  defraying  the  expense 
incident  to  the  appointment  of  an  Agent  or 
Commissioner  to  Greece,  whenever  the  Pres 
ident  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  make  such 
appointment." 

These,  it  is  believed,  are  the  first  official 
expressions  favorable  to  the  independence 
of  Greece  uttered  by  any  of  the  govern 
ments  of  Christendom,  and  no  doubt  con 
tributed  powerfully  towards  the  creation  of 
that  feeling  throughout  the  civilized  world 


which  eventually  led  to  the  battle  of  Nava- 
rino,  and  the  liberation  of  a  portion  of 
Greece  from  the  Turkish  yoke. 

The  House  of  Representatives  having,  on 
the  19th  of  January,  resolved  itself  into  a 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  this  resolution 
being  taken  into  consideration,  Mr.  Webster 
spoke  to  the  following  effect.] 

I  AM  afraid,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  so 
far  as  my  part  in  this  discussion  is  con 
cerned,  those  expectations  which  the 
public  excitement  existing  on  the  sub 
ject,  and  certain  associations  easily  sug 
gested  by  it,  have  conspired  to  raise, 
may  be  disappointed.  An  occasion 
which  calls  the  attention  to  a  spot  so 
distinguished,  so  connected  with  inter 
esting  recollections,  as  Greece,  may  natu 
rally  create  something  of  warmth  and 
enthusiasm.  In  a  grave,  political  dis 
cussion,  however,  it  is  necessary  that 
those  feelings  should  be  chastised.  I 
shall  endeavor  properly  to  repress  them, 
although  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  be  altogether  extinguished.  We 
must,  indeed,  fly  beyond  the  civilized 
world;  we  must  pass  the  dominion  of  law 
and  the  boundaries  of  knowledge;  we 
must,  more  especially,  withdraw  our 
selves  from  this  place,  and  the  scenes 
and  objects  which  here  surround  us,  — 
if  we  would  separate  ourselves  entirely 
from  the  influence  of  all  those  memorials 
of  herself  which  ancient  Greece  has 
transmitted  for  the  admiration  and  the 
benefit  of  mankind.  This  free  form  of 
government,  this  popular  assembly,  the 
common  council  held  for  the  common 
good,  — where  have  we  contemplated  its 
earliest  models?  This  practice  of  free 
debate  and  public  discussion,  the  contest 


58 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


of  mind  with  mind,  and  that  popular 
eloquence,  which,  if  it  were  now  here, 
on  a  subject  like  this,  would  move  the 
stones  of  the  Capitol,  —  whose  was  the 
language  in  which  all  these  were  first 
exhibited?  Even  the  edifice  in  which 
we  assemble,  these  proportioned  col 
umns,  this  ornamented  architecture,  all 
remind  us  that  Greece  has  existed,  and 
that  we,  like  the  rest  of  mankind,  are 
greatly  her  debtors.1 

But  I  have  not  introduced  this  motion 
in  the  vain  hope  of  discharging  any 
thing  of  this  accumulated  debt  of  centu 
ries.  I  have  not  acted  upon  the  expec 
tation,  that  we  who  have  inherited  this 
obligation  from  our  ancestors  should 
now  attempt  to  pay  it  to  those  who  may 
seem  to  have  inherited  from  their  ances 
tors  a  right  to  receive  payment.  My 
object  is  nearer  and  more  immediate.  I 
wish  to  take  occasion  of  the  struggle  of 
an  interesting  and  gallant  people,  in  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  Christianity,  to  draw 
the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  circum 
stances  which  have  accompanied  that 
struggle,  and  to  the  principles  which 
appear  to  have  governed  the  conduct  of 
the  great  states  of  Europe  in  regard  to 
it;  and  to  the  effects  and  consequences 
of  these  principles  upon  the  indepen 
dence  of  nations,  and  especially  upon 
the  institutions  of  free  governments. 
What  I  have  to  say  of  Greece,  therefore, 
concerns  the  modern,  not  the  ancient; 
the  living,  and  not  the  dead.  It  regards 
her,  not  as  she  exists  in  history,  trium 
phant  over  time,  and  tyranny,  and  igno 
rance;  but  as  she  now  is,  contending, 
against  fearful  odds,  for  being,  and 
for  the  common  privileges  of  human 
nature. 

As  it  is  never  difficult  to  recite  com 
monplace  remarks  and  trite  aphorisms, 
so  it  may  be  easy,  I  am  aware,  on  this 
occasion,  to  remind  me  of  the  wisdom 
which  dictates  to  men  a  care  of  their  own 
affairs,  and  admonishes  them,  instead 
of  searching  for  adventures  abroad,  to 
leave  other  men's  concerns  in  their  own 
hands.  It  may  be  easy  to  call  this  reso- 

l  The  interior  of  the  hall  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  is  surrounded  by  a  magnificent 
colonnade  of  the  composite  order.  [1824.] 


lution  Quixotic,  the  emanation  of  a  cru 
sading  or  propagandist  spirit.  All  this, 
and  more,  may  be  readily  said;  but  all 
this,  and  more,  will  not  be  allowed  to 
fix  a  character  upon  this  proceeding, 
until  that  is  proved  which  it  takes  for 
granted.  Let  it  first  be  shown,  that  in 
this  question  there  is  nothing  which  can 
affect  the  interest,  the  character,  or  the 
duty  of  this  country.  Let  it  be  proved, 
that  we  are  not  called  upon,  by  either 
of  these  considerations,  to  express  an 
opinion  on  the  subject  to  which  the 
resolution  relates.  Let  this  be  proved, 
and  then  it  will  indeed  be  made  out, 
that  neither  ought  this  resolution  to  pass, 
nor  ought  the  subject  of  it  to  have  been 
mentioned  in  the  communication  of  the 
President  to  us.  But,  in  my  opinion, 
this  cannot  be  shown.  In  my  judgment, 
the  subject  is  interesting  to  the  people 
and  the  government  of  this  country,  and 
we  are  called  upon,  by  considerations  of 
great  weight  and  moment,  to  express 
our  opinions  upon  it.  These  considera 
tions,  I  think,  spring  from  a  sense  of 
our  own  duty,  our  character,  and  our  own 
interest.  I  wish  to  treat  the  subject  on 
such  grounds,  exclusively,  as  are  truly 
American;  but  then,  in  considering  it 
as  an  American  question,  I  cannot  for 
get  the  age  in  which  we  live,  the  pre 
vailing  spirit  of  the  age,  the  interesting 
questions  which  agitate  it,  and  our  own 
peculiar  relation  in  regard  to  these  inter 
esting  questions.  Let  this  be,  then,  and 
as  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  hope  it  will 
be,  purely  an  American  discussion;  but 
let  it  embrace,  nevertheless,  every  thing 
that  fairly  concerns  America.  Let  it 
comprehend,  not  merely  her  present  ad 
vantage,  but  her  permanent  interest,  her 
elevated  character  as  one  of  the  free 
states  of  the  world,  and  her  duty  towards 
those  great  principles  which  have  hith 
erto  maintained  the  relative  indepen 
dence  of  nations,  and  which  have,  more 
especially,  made  her  what  she  is. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  session, 
the  President,  in  the  discharge  of  the 
high  duties  of  his  office,  called  our  at 
tention  to  the  subject  to  which  this  res 
olution  refers.  "  A  strong  hope,"  says 
that  communication,  "  has  been  long 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


entertained,  founded  on  the  heroic  strug 
gle  of  the  Greeks,  that  they  would  suc 
ceed  in  their  contest,  and  resume  their 
equal  station  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  It  is  believed  that  the  whole 
civilized  world  takes  a  deep  interest  in 
their  welfare.  Although  no  power  has 
declared  in  their  favor,  yet  none,  ac 
cording  to  our  information,  has  taken 
part  against  them.  Their  cause  and 
their  name  have  protected  them  from 
dangers  which  might  ere  this  have  over 
whelmed  any  other  people.  The  ordi 
nary  calculations  of  interest,  and  of 
acquisition  with  a  view  to  aggrandize 
ment,  which  mingle  so  much  in  the 
transactions  of  nations,  seem  to  have 
had  no  effect  in  regard  to  them.  From 
the  facts  which  have  come  to  our  knowl 
edge,  there  is  good  cause  to  believe  that 
their  enemy  has  lost  for  ever  all  domin 
ion  over  them ;  that  Greece  will  become 
again  an  independent  nation." 

It  has  appeared  to  me  that  the  House 
should  adopt  some  resolution  reciprocat 
ing  these  sentiments,  so  far  as  it  shall 
approve  them.  More  than  twenty  years 
have  elapsed  since  Congress  first  ceased 
to  receive  such  a  communication  from 
the  President  as  could  properly  be  made 
the  subject  of  a  general  answer.  I  do 
not  mean  to  find  fault  with  this  relin- 
quishment  of  a  former  and  an  ancient 
practice.  It  may  have  been  attended 
with  inconveniences  which  justified  its 
abolition .  But,  certainly,  there  was  one 
advantage  belonging  to  it;  and  that  is, 
that  it  furnished  a  fit  opportunity  for 
the  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Houses  of  Congress  upon  those  topics 
in  the  executive  communication  which 
were  not  expected  to  be  made  the  im 
mediate  subjects  of  direct  legislation. 
Since,  therefore,  the  President's  mes 
sage  does  not  now  receive  a  general  an 
swer,  it  has  seemed  to  me  to  be  proper 
that,  in  some  mode,  agreeable  to  our 
own  usual  form  of  proceeding,  we  should 
express  our  sentiments  upon  the  impor 
tant  and  interesting  topics  on  which  it 
treats. 

If  the  sentiments  of  the  message  in 
respect  to  Greece  be  proper,  it  is  equally 
proper  that  this  House  should  recipro 


cate  those  sentiments.  The  present  res 
olution  is  designed  to  have  that  extent, 
and  no  more.  If  it  pass,  it  will  leave 
any  future  proceeding  where  it  now  is, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  executive  gov 
ernment.  It  is  but  an  expression,  under 
those  forms  in  which  the  House  is  ac 
customed  to  act,  of  the  satisfaction  of 
the  House  with  the  general  sentiments 
expressed  in  regard  to  this  subject  in  the 
message,  and  of  its  readiness  to  defray 
the  expense  incident  to  any  inquiry  for 
the  purpose  of  further  information,  or 
any  other  agency  which  the  President, 
in  his  discretion,  shall  see  fit,  in  what 
ever  manner  and  at  whatever  time,  to 
institute.  The  whole  matter  is  still  left 
in  his  judgment,  and  this  resolution  can 
in  no  way  restrain  its  unlimited  exer 
cise. 

I  might  well,  Mr.  Chairman,  avoid 
the  responsibility  of  this  measure,  if  it 
had,  in  my  judgment,  any  tendency  to 
change  the  policy  of  the  country.  With 
the  general  course  of  that  policy  I  am 
quite  satisfied.  The  nation  is  prosper 
ous,  peaceful,  and  happy;  and  I  should 
very  reluctantly  put  its  peace,  prosper 
ity,  or  happiness  at  risk.  It  appears  to 
me,  however,  that  this  resolution  is 
strictly  conformable  to  our  general  pol 
icy,  and  not  only  consistent  with  our 
interests,  but  even  demanded  by  a  large 
and  liberal  view  of  those  interests. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  the  just  pol 
icy  of  this  country  is,  in  the  first  place, 
a  peaceful  policy.  No  nation  ever  had 
less  to  expect  from  forcible  aggrandize 
ment.  The  mighty  agents  which  are 
working  out  our  greatness  are  time,  in 
dustry,  and  the  arts.  Our  augmenta 
tion  is  by  growth,  not  by  acquisition; 
by  internal  development,  not  by  exter 
nal  accession.  No  schemes  can  be  sug 
gested  to  us  so  magnificent  as  the 
prospects  which  a  sober  contemplation 
of  our  own  condition,  unaided  by  proj 
ects,  uninfluenced  by  ambition,  fairly 
spreads  before  us.  A  country  of  such 
vast  extent,  with  such  varieties  of  soil 
and  climate,  with  so  much  public  spirit 
and  private  enterprise,  with  a  popula 
tion  increasing  so  much  beyond  former 
example,  with  capacities  of  improve- 


60 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


ment  not  only  unapplied  or  unex 
hausted,  but  even,  in  a  great  measure, 
as  yet  unexplored,  —  so  free  in  its  insti 
tutions,  so  mild  in  its  laws,  so  secure  in 
the  title  it  confers  on  every  man  to  his 
own  acquisitions, — needs  nothing  but 
time  and  peace  to  carry  it  forward  to 
almost  any  point  of  advancement. 

In  the  next  place,  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  policy  of  this  country,  spring 
ing  from  the  nature  of  our  government 
and  the  spirit  of  all  our  institutions,  is, 
so  far  as  it  respects  the  interesting  ques 
tions  which  agitate  the  present  age,  on 
the  side  of  liberal  and  enlightened  sen 
timents.  The  age  is  extraordinary; 
the  spirit  that  actuates  it  is  peculiar  and 
marked;  and  our  own  relation  to  the 
times  we  live  in,  and  to  the  questions 
which  interest  them,  is  equally  marked 
and  peculiar.  We  are  placed,  by  our 
good  fortune  and  the  wisdom  and  valor 
of  our  ancestors,  in  a  condition  in  which 
we  can  act  no  obscure  part.  Be  it  for 
honor,  or  be  it  for  dishonor,  whatever 
we  do  is  sure  to  attract  the  observation 
of  the  world.  As  one  of  the  free  states 
among  the  nations,  as  a  great  and  rap 
idly  rising  republic,  it  would  be  impos 
sible  for  us,  if  we  were  so  disposed,  to 
prevent  our  principles,  our  sentiments, 
and  our  example  from  producing  some 
effect  upon  the  opinions  and  hopes  of 
society  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
It  rests  probably  with  ourselves  to  deter 
mine  whether  the  influence  of  these  shall 
be  salutary  or  pernicious. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  great 
political  question  of  this  age  is  that 
between  absolute  and  regulated  govern 
ments.  The  substance  of  the  contro 
versy  is  whether  society  shall  have  any 
part  in  its  own  government.  Whether 
the  form  of  government  shall  be  that  of 
limited  monarchy,  with  more  or  less 
mixture  of  hereditary  power,  or  wholly 
elective  or  representative,  may  perhaps 
be  considered  as  subordinate.  The 
main  controversy  is  between  that  abso 
lute  rule,  which,  while  it  promises  to 
govern  well,  means,  nevertheless,  to 
govern  without  control,  and  that  consti 
tutional  system  which  restrains  sover 
eign  discretion,  and  asserts  that  society 


may  claim  as  matter  of  right  some  effec 
tive  power  in  the  establishment  of  the 
laws  which  are  to  regulate  it.  The 
spirit  of  the  times  sets  with  a  most  pow 
erful  current  in  favor  of  these  last-men 
tioned  opinions.  It  is  opposed,  however, 
whenever  and  wherever  it  shows  itself, 
by  certain  of  the  great  potentates  of  Eu 
rope;  and  it  is  opposed  on  grounds  as 
applicable  in  one  civilized  nation  as  in 
another,  and  which  would  justify  such 
opposition  in  relation  to  the  United 
States,  as  well  as  in  relation  to  any  other 
state  or  nation,  if  time  and  circumstan 
ces  should  render  such  opposition  expe 
dient. 

What  part  it  becomes  this  country  to 
take  on  a  question  of  this  sort,  so  far  as 
it  is  called  upon  to  take  any  part,  can 
not  be  doubtful.  Our  side  of  this  ques 
tion  is  settled  for  us,  even  without  our 
own  volition.  Our  history,  our  situa 
tion,  our  character,  necessarily  decide 
our  position  and  our  course,  before  we 
have  even  time  to  ask  whether  we  have 
an  option.  Our  place  is  on  the  side  of 
free  institutions.  From  the  earliest  set 
tlement  of  these  States,  their  inhabi 
tants  were  accustomed,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the 
powers  of  self-government ;  and  for  the 
last  half-century  they  have  sustained 
systems  of  government  entirely  repre 
sentative,  yielding  to  themselves  the 
greatest  possible  prosperity,  and  not 
leaving  them  without  distinction  and 
respect  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
This  system  we  are  not  likely  to  aban 
don  ;  and  while  we  shall  no  farther  rec 
ommend  its  adoption  to  other  nations, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  than  it  may  recom 
mend  itself  by  its  visible  influence  on 
our  own  growth  and  prosperity,  we  are, 
nevertheless,  interested  to  resist  the  es 
tablishment  of  doctrines  which  deny  the 
legality  of  its  foundations.  We  stand 
as  an  equal  among  nations,  claiming  the 
full  benefit  of  the  established  interna 
tional  law ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  oppose, 
from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  moment, 
any  innovations  upon  that  code  which 
shall  bring  into  doubt  or  question  our 
own  equal  and  independent  rights. 

I  will  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  advert  to 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


61 


those  pretensions  put  forth  by  the  allied 
sovereigns  of  Continental  Europe,  which 
seem  to  me  calculated,  if  unresisted,  to 
bring  into  disrepute  the  principles  of 
our  government,  and,  indeed,  to  be 
wholly  incompatible  with  any  degree  of 
national  independence.  I  do  not  intro 
duce  these  considerations  for  the  sake 
of  topics.  I  am  not  about  to  declaim 
against  crowned  heads,  nor  to  quarrel 
with  any  country  for  preferring  a  form 
of  government  different  from  our  own. 
The  right  of  choice  that  we  exercise  for 
ourselves,  I  am  quite  willing  to  leave 
also  to  others.  But  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  pretensions  to  which  I  have 
alluded  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the 
independence  of  nations  generally,  with 
out  regard  to  the  question  whether  their 
governments  be  absolute,  monarchical 
and  limited,  or  purely  popular  and  rep 
resentative.  I  have  a  most  deep  and 
thorough  conviction,  that  a  new  era  has 
arisen  in  the  world,  that  new  and  dan 
gerous  combinations  are  taking  place, 
promulgating  doctrines  and  fraught 
with  consequences  wholly  subversive  in 
their  tendency  of  the  public  law  of  na 
tions  and  of  the  general  liberties  of  man 
kind.  Whether  this  be  so,  or  not,  is 
the  question  which  I  now  propose  to  ex 
amine,  upon  such  grounds  of  informa 
tion  as  are  afforded  by  the  common  and 
public  means  of  knowledge. 

Everybody  knows  that,  since  the  final 
restoration  of  the  Bourbons  to  the  throne 
of  France,  the  Continental  powers  have 
entered  into  sundry  alliances,  w7hich  have 
been  made  public,  and  have  held  sev 
eral  meetings  or  congresses,  at  which 
the  principles  of  their  political  conduct 
have  been  declared.  These  things  must 
necessarily  have  an  effect  upon  the  in 
ternational  law  of  the  states  of  the  world. 
If  that  effect  be  good,  and  according  to 
the  principles  of  that  law,  they  deserve 
to  be  applauded.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
their  effect  and  tendency  be  most  dan 
gerous,  their  principles  wholly  inadmis 
sible,  their  pretensions  such  as  would 
abolish  every  degree  of  national  inde 
pendence,  then  they  are  to  be  resisted. 

I  begin,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  drawing 
your  attention  to  the  treaty  concluded 


at  Paris  in  September,  1815,  between 
Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria,  commonly 
called  the  Holy  Alliance.  This  singular 
alliance  appears  to  have  originated  with 
the  Emperor  of  Russia;  for  we  are  in 
formed  that  a  draft  of  it  was  exhibited 
by  him,  personally,  to  a  plenipotentiary 
of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  Europe, 
before  it  was  presented  to  the  other 
sovereigns  who  ultimately  signed  it.1 
This  instrument  professes  nothing,  cer 
tainly,  which  is  not  extremely  commend 
able  and  praiseworthy.  It  promises  only 
that  the  contracting  parties,  both  in  re 
lation  to  other  states,  and  in  regard  to 
their  own  subjects,  will  observe  the  rules 
of  justice  and  Christianity.  In  confir 
mation  of  these  promises,  it  makes  the 
most  solemn  and  devout  religious  invo 
cations.  Now,  although  such  an  alliance 
is  a  novelty  in  European  history,  the 
world  seems  to  have  received  this  treaty, 
upon  its  first  promulgation ,  with  general 
charity.  It  was  commonly  understood 
as  little  or  nothing  more  than  an  ex 
pression  of  thanks  for  the  successful 
termination  of  the  momentous  contest 
in  which  those  sovereigns  had  been  en 
gaged.  It  still  seems  somewhat  unac 
countable,  however,  that  these  good 
resolutions  should  require  to  be  con 
firmed  by  treaty.  Who  doubted  that 
these  august  sovereigns  would  treat  each 
other  with  justice,  and  rule  their  own 
subjects  in  mercy?  And  what  necessity 
was  there  for  a  solemn  stipulation  by 
treaty,  to  insure  the  performance  of  that 
which  is  no  more  than  the  ordinary  duty 
of  every  government?  It  would  hardly 
be  admitted  by  these  sovereigns,  that  by 
this  compact  they  consider  themselves 
bound  to  introduce  an  entire  change,  or 
any  change  in  the  course  of  their  own 
conduct.  Nothing  substantially  new, 
certainly,  can  be  supposed  to  have  been 
intended.  What  principle,  or  what  prac 
tice,  therefore,  called  for  this  solemn 
declaration  of  the  intention  of  the  par 
ties  to  observe  the  rules  of  religion  and 
justice? 

1  See  Lord  Castlereagh's  speech  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  February  3,  1816.  Debates  in 
Parliament,  Vol.  XXXVI.  p.  355;  where  also 
the  treaty  may  be  found  at  length. 


62 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


1  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  a 
writer  of  reputation  upon  the  Public 
Law,  described,  many  years  ago,  not 
inaccurately,  the  character  of  this  alli 
ance.  I  allude  to  Puffendorf.  "  It 
seems  useless,"  says  he,  "  to  frame  any 
pacts  or  leagues,  barely  for  the  defence 
and  support  of  universal  peace;  for  by 
such  a  league  nothing  is  superadded  to 
the  obligation  of  natural  law,  and  no 
agreement  is  made  for  the  performance 
of  any  thing  which  the  parties  were  not 
previously  bound  to  perform;  nor  is  the 
original  obligation  rendered  firmer  or 
stronger  by  such  an  addition.  Men  of 
any  tolerable  culture  and  civilization 
might  well  be  ashamed  of  entering  into 
any  such  compact,  the  conditions  of 
which  imply  only  that  the  parties  con 
cerned  shall  not  offend  in  any  clear 
point  of  duty.  Besides,  we  should  be 
guilty  of  great  irreverence  towards  God, 
should  we  suppose  that  his  injunctions 
had  not  already  laid  a  sufficient  obliga 
tion  upon  us  to  act  justly,  unless  we 
ourselves  voluntarily  consented  to  the 
same  engagement;  as  if  our  obligation 
to  obey  his  will  depended  upon  our  own 
pleasure. 

"If  one  engage  to  serve  another,  he 
does  not  set  it  down  expressly  and  par 
ticularly  among  the  terms  and  condi 
tions  of  the  bargain,  that  he  will  not 
betray  nor  murder  him,  nor  pillage  nor 
burn  his  house.  For  the  same  reason, 
that  would  be  a  dishonorable  engage 
ment  in  which  men  should  bind  them 
selves  to  act  properly  and  decently,  and 
not  break  the  peace."  1 

Such  were  the  sentiments  of  that  emi 
nent  writer.  How  nearly  he  had  antici 
pated  the  case  of  the  Holy  Alliance  will 
appear  from  the  preamble  to  that  alli 
ance.  After  stating  that  the  allied 
sovereigns  had  become  persuaded,  by 
the  events  of  the  last  three  years,  that 
"  their  relations  with  each  other  ought 
to  be  regulated  exclusively  by  the  sub 
lime  truths  taught  by  the  eternal  relig 
ion  of  God  the  Saviour,"  they  solemnly 
declare  their  fixed  resolution  "  to  adopt 
as  the  sole  rule  of  their  conduct,  both 

1  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  Book  II.  cap. 
2,  §  11. 


in  the  administration  of  their  respective 
states,  and  in  their  political  relations 
with  every  other  government,  the  pre 
cepts  of  t],iat  holy  religion,  namely,  the 
precepts  of  justice,  charity,  and  peace, 
which,  far  from  being  applicable  to  pri 
vate  life  alone,  ought,  on  the  contrary, 
to  have  a  direct  influence  upon  the  coun 
sels  of  princes,  and  guide  all  their  steps, 
as  being  the  only  means  of  consolidating 
human  institutions,  and  remedying  their 
imperfections."  2 

This  measure,  however,  appears  prin 
cipally  important,  as  it  was  the  first  of 
a  series,  and  was  followed  afterwards  by 
others  of  a  more  marked  and  practical 
nature.  These  measures,  taken  to 
gether,  profess  to  establish  two  princi 
ples,  which  the  Allied  Powers  wou'ld 
introduce  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  the 
civilized  world;  and  the  establishment 
of  which  is  to  be  enforced  by  a  million 
and  a  half  of  bayonets. 

The  first  of  these  principles  is,  that 
all  popular  or  constitutional  rights  are 
held  no  otherwise  than  as  grants  from 
the  crown.  Society,  upon  this  princi 
ple,  has  no  rights  of  its  own ;  it  takes 
good  government,  when  it  gets  it,  as  a 
boon  and  a  concession,  but  can  demand 
nothing.  It  is  to  live  by  that  favor  which 
emanates  from  royal  authority,  and  if 
it  have  the  misfortune  to  lose  that  favor, 
there  is  nothing  to  protect  it  against  any 
degree  of  injustice  and  oppression.  It 
can  rightfully  make  no  endeavor  for  a 
change,  byfc  itself;  its  whole  privilege  is 
to  receive  the  favors  that  may  be  dis 
pensed  by  the  sovereign  power,  and  all 
its  duty  is  described  in  the  single  word 
submission.  This  is  the  plain  result  of 
the  principal  Continental  state  papers; 
indeed,  it  is  nearly  the  identical  text  of 
some  of  them. 

The  circular  despatch  addressed  by 
the  sovereigns  assembled  at  Laybach, 
in  the  spring  of  1821,  to  their  ministers 
at  foreign  courts,  alleges,  "that  useful 
and  necessary  changes  in  legislation  and 
in  the  administration  of  states  ought 
only  to  emanate  from  the  free  will  and 
intelligent  and  well-weighed  conviction 

2  Martens,  Recueil  des  Trails,  Tome  XIII. 
p.  656. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


63 


of  those  whom  God  has  rendered  re 
sponsible  for  power.  All  that  deviates 
from  this  line  necessarily  leads  to  dis 
order,  commotions,  and  evils  far  more 
insufferable  than  those  which  they  pre 
tend  to  remedy."1  Now,  Sir,  this  prin 
ciple  would  carry  Europe  back  again,  at 
once,  into  the  middle  of  the  Dark  Ages. 
It  is  the  old  doctrine  of  the  Divine  right 
of  kings,  advanced  now  by  new  advo 
cates,  and  sustained  by  a  formidable 
array  of  power.  That  the  people  hold 
their  fundamental  privileges  as  matter 
of  concession  or  indulgence  from  the 
sovereign  power,  is  a  sentiment  not  easy 
to  be  diffused  in  this  age,  any  farther 
than  it  is  enforced  by  the  direct  opera 
tion  of  military  means.  It  is  true,  cer 
tainly,  that  some  six  centuries  ago  the 
early  founders  of  English  liberty  called 
the  instrument  which  secured  their  rights 
a  charter.  It  was,  indeed,  a  concession ; 
they  had  obtained  it  sword  in  hand  from 
the  king;  and  in  many  other  cases,  what 
ever  was  obtained,  favorable  to  human 
rights,  from  the  tyranny  and  despotism 
of  the  feudal  sovereigns,  was  called  by 
the  names  of  privileges  and  liberties,  as 
being  matter  of  special  favor.  Though 
we  retain  this  language  at  the  present 
time,  the  principle  itself  belongs  to  ages 
that  have  long  passed  by  us.  The  civil 
ized  world  has  done  with  "  the  enormous 
faith,  of  many  made  for  one."  Society 
asserts  its  own  rights,  and  alleges  them 
to  be  original,  sacred,  and  unalienable. 
It  is  not  satisfied  with  having  kind  mas 
ters;  it  demands  a  participation  in  its 
own  government;  and  in  states  much 
advanced  in  civilization,  it  urges  this 
demand  with  a  constancy  and  an  energy 
that  cannot  well  nor  long  be  resisted. 
There  are,  happily,  enough  of  regulated 
governments  in  the  world,  and  those 
among  the  most  distinguished,  to  op 
erate  as  constant  examples,  and  to  keep 
alive  an  unceasing  panting  in  the  bosoms 
of  men  for  the  enjoyment  of  similar  free 
institutions. 

When  the  English  Revolution  of  1688 
took  place,  the  English  people  did  not 
content  themselves  with  the  example  of 

1  Annual  Register  for  1821,  p.  601. 


Runnyrnede;  they  did  not  build  their 
hopes  upon  royal  charters ;  they  did  not, 
like  the  authors  of  the  Laybach  circular, 
suppose  that  all  useful  changes  in  con 
stitutions  and  laws  must  proceed  from 
those  only  whom  God  has  rendered  re 
sponsible  for  power.  They  were  some 
what  better  instructed  in  the  principles 
of  civil  liberty,  or  at  least  they  were 
better  lovers  of  those  principles  than 
the  sovereigns  of  Laybach.  Instead  of 
petitioning  for  charters,  they  declared 
their  rights,  and  while  they  offered  to 
the  Prince  of  Orange  the  crown  with  one 
hand,  they  held  in  the  other  an  enu-^ 
meration  of  those,  privileges  which  they 
did  not  profess  to  hold  as  favors,  but 
which  they  demanded  and  insisted  upon, 
as  their  undoubted  rights. 

I  need  not  stop  to  observe,  Mr.  Chair 
man,  how  totally  hostile  are  these  doc 
trines  of  Laybach  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  government.  They  are 
in  direct  contradiction;  the  principles 
of  good  and  evil  are  hardly  more  oppo 
site.  If  these  principles  of  the  sov 
ereigns  be  true,  we  are  but  in  a  state  of 
rebellion  or  of  anarchy,  and  are  only 
tolerated  among  civilized  states  because 
it  has  not  yet  been  convenient  to  reduce 
us  to  the  true  standard. 

But  the  second,  and,  if  possible,  the 
still  more  objectionable  principle,  avowed 
in  these  papers,  is  the  right  of  forcible 
interference  in  the  affairs  of  other  states. 
A  right  to  control  nations  in  their  desire 
to  change  their  own  government,  wher 
ever  it  maybe  conjectured,  or  pretended, 
that  such  change  might  furnish  an  ex 
ample  to  the  subjects  of  other  states,  is 
plainly  and  distinctly  asserted.  The 
same  Congress  that  made  the  declara 
tion  at  Laybach  had  declared,  before  its 
removal  from  Troppau,  "  that  the  pow 
ers  have  an  undoubted  right  to  take  a 
hostile  attitude  in  regard  to  those  states 
in  which  the  overthrow  of  the  govern 
ment  may  operate  as  an  example." 

There  cannot,  as  I  think,  be  conceived 
a  more  flagrant  violation  of  public  law, 
or  national  independence,  than  is  con 
tained  in  this  short  declaration. 

No  matter  what  be  the  character  of 
the  government  resisted ;  no  matter  with 


64 


THE  KEVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


what  weight  the  foot  of  the  oppressor 
bears  on  the  neck  of  the  oppressed;  if 
he  struggle,  or  if  he  complain,  he  sets  a 
dangerous  example  of  resistance,  —  and 
from  that  moment  he  becomes  an  object 
of  hostility  to  the  most  powerful  poten 
tates  of  the  earth.  I  want  words  to  ex 
press  my  abhorrence  of  this  abominable 
principle.  I  trust  every  enlightened  man 
throughout  the  world  will  oppose  it, 
and  that,  especially,  those  who,  like  our 
selves,  are  fortunately  out  of  the  reach 
of  the  bayonets  that  enforce  it,  will  pro 
claim  their  detestation  of  it,  in  a  tone 
both  loud  and  decisive.  The  avowed 
object  of  such  declarations  is  to  preserve 
the  peace  of  the  world.  But  by  what 
means  is  it  proposed  to  preserve  this 
peace  ?  Simply,  by  bringing  the  power 
of  all  governments  to  bear  against  all 
subjects.  Here  is  to  be  established  a  sort 
of  double,  or  treble,  or  quadruple,  or, 
for  aught  I  know,  quintuple  allegiance. 
An  offence  against  one  king  is  to  be  an 
offence  against  all  kings,  and  the  power 
of  all  is  to  be  put  forth  for  the  punish 
ment  of  the  offender.  A  right  to  inter 
fere  in  extreme  cases,  in  the  case  of 
contiguous  states,  and  where  imminent 
danger  is  threatened  to  one  by  what  is 
occurring  in  another,  is  not  without  pre 
cedent  in  modern  times,  upon  what  has 
been  called  the  law  of  vicinage;  and 
when  confined  to  extreme  cases,  and 
limited  to  a  certain  extent,  it  may 
perhaps  be  defended  upon  principles  of 
necessity  and  self-defence.  But  to  main 
tain  that  sovereigns  may  go  to  war  upon 
the  subjects  of  another  state  to  repress 
an  example,  is  monstrous  indeed.  What 
is  to  be  the  limit  to  such  a  principle,  or 
to  the  practice  growing  out  of  it  ?  What, 
in  any  case,  but  sovereign  pleasure,  is 
to  decide  whether  the  example  be  good 
or  bad  ?  And  what,  under  the  operation 
of  such  a  rule,  may  be  thought  of  our 
example  ?  Why  are  we  not  as  fair  ob 
jects  for  the  operation  of  the  new  prin 
ciple,  as  any  of  those  who  may  attempt 
a  reform  of  government  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic  ? 

The  ultimate  effect  of  this  alliance 
of  sovereigns,  for  objects  personal  to 
themselves,  or  respecting  only  the  per 


manence  of  their  own  power,  must  be 
the  destruction  of  all  just  feeling,  and 
all  natural  sympathy,  between  those 
who  exercjse  the  power  of  govern 
ment  and  those  who  are  subject  to  it. 
The  old  channels  of  mutual  regard  and 
confidence  are  to  be  dried  up,  or  cut 
off.  Obedience  can  now  be  expected  no 
longer  than  it  is  enforced.  Instead  of 
relying  on  the  affections  of  the  gov 
erned,  sovereigns  are  to  rely  on  the 
affections  and  friendship  of  other  sov 
ereigns.  There  are,  in  short,  no  longer 
to  be  nations.  Princes  and  people  are 
no  longer  to  unite  for  interests  common 
to  them  both.  There  is  to  be  an  end  of 
all  patriotism,  as  a  distinct  national 
feeling.  Society  is  to  be  divided  hori 
zontally;  all  sovereigns  above,  and  all 
subjects  below;  the  former  coalescing 
for  their  own  security,  and  for  the  more 
certain  subjection  of  the  undistinguished 
multitude  beneath.  This,  Sir,  is  no 
picture  drawn  by  imagination.  I  have 
hardly  used  language  stronger  than  that 
in  which  the  authors  of  this  new  system 
have  commented  on  their  own  work. 
M.  de  Chateaubriand,  in  his  speech  in 
the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in 
February  last,  declared,  that  he  had  a 
conference  with  the  Emperor  of  Russia 
at  Verona,  in  which  that  august  sover 
eign  uttered  sentiments  which  appeared 
to  him  so  precious,  that  he  immediately 
hastened  home,  and  wrote  them  down 
while  yet  fresh  in  his  recollection.  "  The 
Emperor  declared,"  said  he,  "  that 
there  can  no  longer  be  such  a  thing  as 
an  English,  French,  Russian,  Prussian, 
or  Austrian  policy;  there  is  henceforth 
but  one  policy,  which,  for  the  safety  of 
all,  should  be  adopted  both  by  people 
and  kings.  It  was  for  me  first  to  show 
myself  convinced  of  the  principles  upon 
which  I  founded  the  alliance ;  an  occa 
sion  offered  itself,  —  the  rising  in  Greece. 
Nothing  certainly  could  occur  more  for 
my  interests,  for  the  interests  of  my 
people,  nothing  more  acceptable  to  my 
country,  than  a  religious  war  in  Turkey. 
But  I  have  thought  I  perceived  in  the 
troubles  of  the  Morea  the  sign  of  revo 
lution,  and  I  have  held  back.  Provi 
dence  has  not  put  under  my  command 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


65 


eight  hundred  thousand  soldiers  to  sat 
isfy  my  ambition,  but  to  protect  relig 
ion,  morality,  and  justice,  and  to  secure 
the  prevalence  of  those  principles  of 
order  on  which  human  society  rests.  It 
may  well  be  permitted,  that  kings  may 
have  public  alliances  to  defend  them 
selves  against  secret  enemies." 

These,  Sir,  are  the  words  which  the 
French  minister  thought  so  important 
that  they  deserved  to  be  recorded ;  and  I, 
too,  Sir,  am  of  the  same  opinion.  But 
if  it  be  true  that  there  is  hereafter  to  be 
neither  a  Russian  policy,  nor  a  Prus 
sian  policy,  nor  an  Austrian  policy,  nor 
a  French  policy,  nor  even,  which  yet  I 
will  not  believe,  an  English  policy,  there 
will  be,  I  trust  in  God,  an  American 
policy.  If  the  authority  of  all  these 
governments  be  hereafter  to  be  mixed 
and  blended,  and  to  flow  in  one  aug 
mented  current  of  prerogative  over  the 
face  of  Europe,  sweeping  away  all  re 
sistance  in  its  course,  it  will  yet  remain 
for  us  to  secure  our  own  happiness  by 
the  preservation  of  our  own  principles ; 
which  I  hope  we  shall  have  the  man 
liness  to  express  on  all  proper  occasions, 
and  the  spirit  to  defend  in  every  extrem 
ity.  The  end  and  scope  of  this  amal 
gamated  policy  are  neither  more  nor 
less  than  this:  to  interfere,  by  force,  for 
any  government  against  any  people  who 
may  resist  it.  Be  the  state  of  the  people 
what  it  may,  they  shall  not  rise ;  be  the 
government  what  it  will,  it  shall  not  be 
opposed. 

The  practical  commentary  has  corre 
sponded  with  the  plain  language  of  the 
text.  Look  at  Spain,  and  at  Greece. 
If  men  may  not  resist  the  Spanish  In 
quisition,  and  the  Turkish  cimeter,  what 
is  there  to  which  humanity  must  not 
submit?  Stronger  cases  can  never  arise. 
Is  it  not  proper  for  us,  at  all  times,  is  it 
not  our  duty,  at  this  time,  to  come  forth, 
and  deny,  and  condemn,  these  monstrous 
principles?  Where,  but  here,  and  in  one 
other  place,  are  they  likely  to  be  resisted? 
They  are  advanced  with  equal  coolness 
and  boldness;  and  they  are  supported 
by  immense  power.  The  timid  will 
shrink  and  give  way,  and  many  of  the 
brave  may  be  compelled  to  yield  to  force. 


Human  liberty  may  yet,  perhaps,  be 
obliged  to  repose  its  principal  hopes  on 
the  intelligence  and  the  vigor  of  the 
Saxon  race.  As  far  as  depends  on  us, 
at  least,  I  trust  those  hopes  will  not  be 
disappointed;  and  that,  to  the  extent 
which  may  consist  with  our  own  settled, 
pacific  policy,  our  opinions  and  senti 
ments  may  be  brought  to  act  on  the 
right  side,  and  to  the  right  end,  on  an 
occasion  which  is,  in  truth,  nothing  less 
than  a  momentous  question  between  an 
intelligent  age,  full  of  knowledge,  thirst 
ing  for  improvement,  and  quickened  by 
a  thousand  impulses,  on  one  side,  and  the 
most  arbitrary  pretensions,  sustained  by 
unprecedented  power,  on  the  other. 

This  asserted  right  of  forcible  inter 
vention  in  the  affairs  of  other  nations  is 
in  open  violation  of  the  public  law  of 
the  world.  Who  has  authorized  these 
learned  doctors  of  Troppau  to  establish 
new  articles  in  this  code?  Whence  are 
their  diplomas?  Is  the  whole  world  ex 
pected  to  acquiesce  in  principles  which 
entirely  subvert  the  independence  of 
nations?  On  the  basis  of  this  indepen 
dence  has  been  reared  the  beautiful 
fabric  of  international  law.  On  the 
principle  of  this  independence,  Europe 
has  seen  a  family  of  nations  flourishing 
within  its  limits,  the  small  among  the 
large,  protected  not  always  by  power, 
but  by  a  principle  above  power,  by  a 
sense  of  propriety  and  justice.  On  this 
principle,  the  great  commonwealth  of 
civilized  states  has  been  hitherto  upheld. 
There  have  been  occasional  departures 
or  violations,  and  always  disastrous,  as 
in  the  case  of  Poland;  but,  in  general, 
the  harmony  of  the  system  has  been 
wonderfully  preserved.  In  the  produc 
tion  and  preservation  of  this  sense  of 
justice,  this  predominating  principle, 
the  Christian  religion  has  acted  a  main 
part.  Christianity  and  civilization  have 
labored  together ;  it  seems,  indeed,  to  be 
a  law  of  our  human  condition,  that  they 
can  live  and  flourish  only  together.  From 
their  blended  influence  has  arisen  that 
delightful  spectacle  of  the  prevalence  of 
reason  and  principle  over  power  and  in 
terest,  so  well  described  by  one  who  was 
an  honor  to  the  age;  — 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


"  And  sovereign  Law,  the  state's  collected  will, 

O'er  thrones  and  globes  elate, 
Sits  empress,  —  crowning  good,  repressing  ill : 

Smit  by  her  sacred  frown, 
The  fiend,  Discretion,  like  a  vapor,  sinks, 

And  e'en  the  all-dazzJing  crown 
Hides  his   faint  rays,  and    at  her  bidding 
shrinks." 

But  this  vision  is  past.  While  the  teach 
ers  of  Laybach  give  the  rule,  there  will 
be  no  law  but  the  law  of  the  strongest. 

It  may  now  be  required  of  me  to  show 
what  interest  we  have  in  resisting  this 
new  system.  What  is  it  to  ws,  it  may 
be  asked,  upon  what  principles,  or  what 
pretences,  the  European  governments 
assert  a  right  of  interfering  in  the 
affairs  of  their  neighbors?  The  thun 
der,  it  may  be  said,  rolls  at  a  distance. 
The  wide  Atlantic  is  between  us  and 
danger;  and,  however  others  may  suf 
fer,  we  shall  remain  safe. 

I  think  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this 
to  say,  that  we  are  one  of  the  nations  of 
the  earth;  that  we  have  an  interest, 
therefore,  in  the  preservation  of  that 
system  of  national  law  and  national  in 
tercourse  which  has  heretofore  subsisted, 
so  beneficially  for  all.  Our  system  of 
government,  it  should  also  be  remem 
bered,  is,  throughout,  founded  on  prin 
ciples  utterly  hostile  to  the  new  code; 
and  if  we  remain  undisturbed  by  its 
operation,  we  shall  owe  our  security 
either  to  our  situation  or  our  spirit. 
The  enterprising  character  of  the  age, 
our  own  active,  commercial  spirit,  the 
great  increase  which  has  taken  place 
in  the  intercourse  among  civilized  and 
commercial  states,  have  necessarily  con 
nected  us  with  other  nations,  and  given 
us  a  high  concern  in  the  preservation  of 
those  salutary  principles  upon  which 
that  intercourse  is  founded.  We  have 
as  clear  an  interest  in  international 
law,  as  individuals  have  in  the  laws  of 
society. 

But  apart  from  the  soundness  of  the 
policy,  on  the  ground  of  direct  interest, 
we  have,  Sir,  a  duty  connected  with 
this  subject,  which  I  trust  we  are  will 
ing  to  perform.  What  do  we  not  owe 
to  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  lib 
erty?  to  the  principle  of  lawful  resist 
ance?  to  the  principle  that  society  has  a 


right  to  partake  in  its  own  government? 
As  the  leading  republic  of  the  world, 
living  and  breathing  in  these  principles, 
and  advanced,  by  their  operation,  with 
unequalled  rapidity  in  our  career,  shall 
we  give  our  consent  to  bring  them  into 
disrepute  and  disgrace?  It  is  neither 
ostentation  nor  boasting  to  say,  that 
there  lies  before  this  country,  in  imme 
diate  prospect,  a  great  extent  and  height 
of  power.  We  are  borne  along  towards 
this  without  effort,  and  not  always  even 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  rapidity  of 
our  own  motion.  Circumstances  which 
never  combined  before  have  co-operated 
in  our  favor,  and  a  mighty  current  is  set 
ting  us  forward  which  we  could  not  resist 
even  if  we  would,  and  which,  while  we 
would  stop  to  make  an  observation,  and 
take  the  sun,  has  set  us,  at  the  end  of 
the  operation,  far  in  advance  of  the 
place  where  we  commenced  it.  Does  it 
not  become  us,  then,  is  it  not  a  duty 
imposed  on  us,  to  give  our  weight  to 
the  side  of  liberty  and  justice,  to  let 
mankind  know  that  we  are  not  tired 
of  our  own  institutions,  and  to  pro 
test  against  the  asserted  power  of  alter 
ing  at  pleasure  the  law  of  the  civilized 
world? 

But  whatever  we  do  in  this  respect,  it 
becomes  us  to  do  upon  clear  and  con 
sistent  principles.  There  is  an  impor 
tant  topic  in  the  message  to  which  I  have 
yet  hardly  alluded.  I  mean  the  rumored 
combination  of  the  European  Conti 
nental  sovereigns  against  the  newly  es 
tablished  free  states  of  South  America. 
Whatever  position  this  government  may 
take  on  that  subject,  I  trust  it  will  be 
one  which  can  be  defended  on  known 
and  acknowledged  grounds  of  right. 
The  near  approach  or  the  remote  dis 
tance  of  danger  may  affect  policy,  but 
cannot  change  principle.  The  same 
reason  that  would  authorize  us  to  pro 
test  against  unwarrantable  combina 
tions  to  interfere  between  Spain  and  her 
former  colonies,  would  authorize  us 
equally  to  protest  if  the  same  combina 
tion  were  directed  against  the  smallest 
state  in  Europe,  although  our  duty  to 
ourselves,  our  policy,  and  wisdom,  might 
indicate  very  different  courses  as  fit  to 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


67 


be  pursued  by  us  in  the  two  cases.  We 
shall  not,  I  trust,  act  upon  the  notion  of 
dividing  the  world  with  the  Holy  Alli 
ance,  and  complain  of  nothing  done  by 
them  in  their  hemisphere  if  they  will 
not  interfere  with  ours.  At  least  this 
would  not  be  such  a  course  of  policy  as 
I  could  recommend  or  support.  We 
have  not  offended,  and  I  hope  we  do  not 
intend  to  offend,  in  regard  to  South 
America,  against  any  principle  of  na 
tional  independence  or  of  public  law. 
We  have  done  nothing,  we  shall  do 
nothing,  that  we  need  to  hush  up  or  to 
compromise  by  forbearing  to  express 
our  sympathy  for  the  cause  of  the  Greeks, 
or  our  opinion  of  the  course  which  other 
governments  have  adopted  in  regard  to 
them. 

It  may,  in  the  next  place,  be  asked, 
perhaps,  Supposing  all  this  to  be  true, 
what  can  we  do?  Are  we  to  go  to  war? 
Are  we  to  interfere  in  the  Greek  cause, 
or  any  other  European  cause?  Are  we 
to  endanger  our  pacific  relations?  No, 
certainly  not.  What,  then,  the  ques 
tion  recurs,  remains  for  us?  If  we  will 
not  endanger  our  own  peace,  if  we  will 
neither  furnish  armies  nor  navies  to  the 
cause  which  we  think  the  just  one,  what 
is  there  within  our  power? 

Sir,  this  reasoning  mistakes  the  age. 
The  time  has  been,  indeed,  when  fleets, 
and  armies,  and  subsidies,  were  the 
principal  reliances  even  in  the  best 
cause.  But,  happily  for  mankind,  a 
great  change  has  taken  place  in  this  re 
spect.  Moral  causes  come  into  consid 
eration,  in  proportion  as  the  progress  of 
knowledge  is  advanced ;  and  the  public 
opinion  of  the  civilized  world  is  rapidly 
gaining  an  ascendency  over  mere  brutal 
force.  It  is  already  able  to  oppose  the 
most  formidable  obstruction  to  the  prog 
ress  of  injustice  and  oppression;  and  as 
it  grows  more  intelligent  and  more  in 
tense,  it  will  be  more  and  more  formi 
dable.  It  may  be  silenced  by  military 
power,  but  it  cannot  be  conquered.  It 
is  elastic,  irrepressible,  and  invulnerable 
to  the  weapons  of  ordinary  warfare.  It 
is  that  impassible,  inextinguishable 
enemy  of  mere  violence  and  arbitrary 
rule,  which,  like  Milton's  angels, 


"  Vital  in  every  part,     .... 
Cannot,  but  by  annihilating,  die." 

Until  this  be  propitiated  or  satisfied, 
it  is  vain  for  power  to  talk  either  of 
triumphs  or  of  repose.  No  matter  what 
fields  are  desolated,  what  fortresses  sur 
rendered,  what  armies  subdued,  or  what 
provinces  overrun.  In  the  history  of 
the  year  that  has  passed  by  us,  and  in 
the  instance  of  unhappy  Spain,  we  have 
seen  the  vanity  of  all  triumphs  in  a 
cause  which  violates  the  general  sense 
of  justice  of  the  civilized  world.  It  is 
nothing  that  the  troops  of  France  have 
passed  from  the  Pyrenees  to  Cadiz;  it 
is  nothing  that  an  unhappy  and  prostrate 
nation  has  fallen  before  them;  it  is 
nothing  that  arrests,  and  confiscation, 
and  execution,  sweep  away  the  little 
remnant  of  national  resistance.  There 
is  an  enemy  that  still  exists  to  check  the 
glory  of  these  triumphs.  It  follows  the 
conqueror  back  to  the  very  scene  of  his 
ovations;  it  calls  upon  him  to  take  no 
tice  that  Europe,  though  silent,  is  yet 
indignant;  it  shows  him  that  the  sceptre 
of  his  victory  is  a  barren  sceptre;  that  it 
shall  confer  neither  joy  nor  honor,  but 
shall  moulder  to  dry  ashes  in  his  grasp. 
In  the  midst  of  his  exultation,  it  pierces 
his  ear  with  the  cry  of  injured  justice ; 
it  denounces  against  him  the  indigna 
tion  of  an  enlightened  and  civilized  age; 
it  turns  to  bitterness  the  cup  of  his  re 
joicing,  and  wounds  him  with  the  sting 
which  belongs  to  the  consciousness  of 
having  outraged  the  opinion  of  man 
kind. 

In  my  opinion,  Sir,  the  Spanish  na 
tion  is  now  nearer,  not  only  in  point  of 
time,  but  in  point  of  circumstance,  to 
the  acquisition  of  a  regulated  govern 
ment,  than  at  the  moment  of  the  French 
invasion.  Nations  must,  no  doubt,  un 
dergo  these  trials  in  their  progress  to 
the  establishment  of  free  institutions. 
The  very  trials  benefit  them,  and  render 
them  more  capable  both  of  obtaining 
and  of  enjoying  the  object  which  they 
seek. 

I  shall  not  detain  the  committee,  Sir, 
by  laying  before  it  any  statistical,  geo 
graphical,  or  commercial  account  of 
Greece.  I  have  no  knowledge  on  these 


68 


THE  KEVOLUTION   IN   GREECE. 


subjects  which  is  not  common  to  all. 
It  is  universally  admitted,  that,  within 
the  last  thirty  or  forty  years,  the  condi 
tion  of  Greece  has  been  greatly  im 
proved.  Her  marine  is  at  present  re 
spectable,  containing  the  best  sailors  in 
the  Mediterranean,  better  even,  in  that 
sea,  than  our  own,  as  more  accustomed 
to  the  long  quarantines  and  other  regu 
lations  which  prevail  in  its  ports.  The 
number  of  her  seamen  has  been  esti 
mated  as  high  as  50,000,  but  I  suppose 
that  estimate  must  be  much  too  large. 
She  has,  probably,  150,000  tons  of  ship 
ping.  It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the 
amount  of  the  Greek  population.  The 
Turkish  government  does  not  trouble 
itself  with  any  of  the  calculations  of 
political  economy,  and  there  has  never 
been  such  a  thing  as  an  accurate  census, 
probably,  in  any  part  of  the  Turkish 
empire.  In  the  absence  of  all  official 
information,  private  opinions  widely  dif 
fer.  By  the  tables  which  have  been 
communicated,  it  would  seem  that  there 
are  2,400,000  Greeks  in  Greece  proper 
and  the  islands;  an  amount,  as  I  am 
inclined  to  think,  somewhat  overrated. 
There  are,  probably,  in  '  the  whole  of 
European  Turkey,  5,000,000  Greeks, 
and  2,000,000  more  in  the  Asiatic  do 
minions  of  that  power. 

The  moral  and  intellectual  progress 
of  this  numerous  population,  under  the 
horrible  oppression  which  crushes  it,  has 
been  such  as  may  well  excite  regard. 
Slaves,  under  barbarous  masters,  the 
Greeks  have  still  aspired  after  the  bless 
ings  of  knowledge  and  civilization.  Be 
fore  the  breaking  out  of  the  present 
revolution,  they  had  established  schools, 
and  colleges,  and  libraries,  and  the 
press.  Wherever,  as  in  Scio,  owing  to 
particular  circumstances,  the  weight  of 
oppression  was  mitigated,  the  natural 
vivacity  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  apti 
tude  for  the  arts,  were  evinced.  Though 
certainly  not  on  an  equality  with  the 
civilized  and  Christian  states  of  Europe, 
—  and  how  is  it  possible,  under  such 
oppression  as  they  endured,  that  they 
should  be?  —  they  yet  furnished  a  strik 
ing  contrast  with  their  Tartar  masters. 
It  has  been  well  said,  that  it  is  not  easy 


to  form  a  just  conception  of  the  nature 
of  the  despotism  exercised  over  them. 
Conquest  and  subjugation,  as  known 
among  European  states,  are  inadequate 
modes  of  expression  by  which  to  denote 
the  dominion  of  the  Turks.  A  conquest 
in  the  civilized  world  is  generally  no 
more  than  an  acquisition  of  a  new  do 
minion  to  the  conquering  country.  It 
does  not  imply  a  never-ending  bondage 
imposed  uppn  the  conquered,  a  perpetual 
mark,  —  an  opprobrious  distinction  be 
tween  them  and  their  masters ;  a  bitter 
and  unending  persecution  of  their  relig 
ion  ;  an  habitual  violation  of  their  rights 
of  person  and  property,  and  the  unre 
strained  indulgence  towards  them  of 
every  passion  which  belongs  to  the  char 
acter  of  a  barbarous  soldiery.  Yet 
such  is  the  state  of  Greece.  The  Otto 
man  power  over  them,  obtained  original 
ly  by  the  sword,  is  constantly  preserved 
by  the  same  means.  Wherever  it  exists, 
it  is  a  mere  military  power.  The  relig 
ious  and  civil  code  of  the  state  being 
both  fixed  in  the  Koran,  and  equally  the 
object  of  an  ignorant  and  furious  faith, 
have  been  "found  equally  incapable  of 
change.  "  The  Turk,"  it  has  been  said, 
"  has  been  encamped  in  Europe  for  four 
centuries."  He  has  h'ardly  any  more 
participation  in  European  manners, 
knowledge,  and  arts,  than  when  he 
crossed  the  Bosphorus.  But  this  is  not 
the  worst.  The  power  of  the  empire  is 
fallen  into  anarchy,  and  as  the  principle 
which  belongs  to  the  head  belongs  also 
to  the  parts,  there  are  as  many  despots 
as  there  are  pachas,  beys,  and  viziers. 
Wars  are  almost  perpetual  between  the 
Sultan  and  some  rebellious  governor  of 
a  province ;  and  in  the  conflict  of  these 
despotisms,  the  people  are  necessarily 
ground  between  the  upper  and  the  nether 
millstone.  In  short,  the  Christian  sub 
jects  of  the  Sublime  Porte  feel  daily  all 
the  miseries  which  flow  from  despotism, 
from  anarchy,  from  slavery,  and  from 
religious  persecution.  If  any  thing  yet 
remains  to  heighten  such  a  picture,  let 
it  be  added,  that  every  office  in  the 
government  is  not  only  actually,  but 
professedly,  venal,  —  the  pachalics,  the 
vizierates,  the  cadiships,  and  whatsoever 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


69 


other  denomination  may  denote  the  de 
positary  of  power.  In  the  whole  world, 
Sir,  there  is  no  such  oppression  felt  as 
by  the  Christian  Greeks.  In  various 
parts  of  India,  to  be  sure,  the  govern 
ment  is  bad  enough ;  but  then  it  is  the 
government  of  barbarians  over  barbari 
ans,  and  the  feeling  of  oppression  is,  of 
course,  not  so  keen .  There  the  oppressed 
are  perhaps  not  better  than  their  oppres 
sors;  but  in  the  case  of  Greece,  there  are 
millions  of  Christian  men,  not  without 
knowledge,  not  without  refinement,  not 
without  a  strong  thirst  for  all  the  pleas 
ures  of  civilized  life,  trampled  into  the 
very  earth,  century  after  century,  by  a 
pillaging,  savage,  relentless  soldiery. 
Sir,  the  case  is  unique.  There  exists, 
and  has  existed,  nothing  like  it.  The 
world  has  no  such  misery  to  show ;  there 
is  no  case  in  which  Christian  communi 
ties  can  be  called  upon  with  such  em 
phasis  of  appeal. 

But  I  have  said  enough,  Mr.  Chairman, 
indeed  I  need  have  said  nothing  to 
satisfy  the  House,  that  it  must  be  some 
new  combination  of  circumstances,  or 
new  views  of  policy  in  the  cabinets  of 
Europe,  which  have  caused  this  interest 
ing  struggle  not  merely  to  be  regarded 
with  indifference,  but  to  be  marked  with 
opprobrium.  The  very  statement  of  the 
case,  as  a  contest  between  the  Turks  and 
Greeks,  sufficiently  indicates  what  must 
be  the  feeling  of  every  individual,  and 
every  government,  that  is  not  biassed  by 
a  particular  interest,  or  a  particular  feel 
ing,  to  disregard  the  dictates  of  justice 
and  humanity. 

And  now,  Sir,  what  has  been  the  con 
duct  pursued  by  the  Allied  Powers  in 
regard  to  this  contest?  When  the  revo 
lution  broke  out,  the  sovereigns  were 
assembled  in  congress  at  Laybach ;  and 
the  papers  of  that  assembly  sufficiently 
manifest  their  sentiments.  They  pro 
claim  their  abhorrence  of  those  "  crimi 
nal  combinations  which  had  been  formed 
in  the  eastern  parts  of  Europe";  and, 
although  it  is  possible  that  this  denun 
ciation  was  aimed,  more  particularly, 
at  the  disturbances  in  the  provinces  of 
Wallachia  and  Moldavia,  yet  no  excep 
tion  is  made,  from  its  general  terms,  in 


favor  of  those  events  in  Greece  which 
were  properly  the  commencement  of  her 
revolution,  and  which  could  not  but  be 
well  known  at  Laybach,  before  the  date 
of  these  declarations.  Now  it  must  be 
remembered,  that  Russia  was  a  leading 
party  in  this  denunciation  of  the  efforts 
of  the  Greeks  to  achieve  their  libera 
tion;  and  it  cannot  but  be  expected  by 
Russia,  that  the  world  should  also  re 
member  what  part  she  herself  has  here 
tofore  acted  in  the  same  concern.  It  is 
notorious,  that  within  the  last  half-cen 
tury  she  has  again  and  again  excited  the 
Greeks  to  rebellion  against  the  Porte, 
and  that  she  has  constantly  kept  alive  in 
them  the  hope  that  she  would,  one  day, 
by  her  own  great  power,  break  the  yoke 
of  their  oppressor.  Indeed,  the  earnest 
attention  with  which  Russia  has  regarded 
Greece  goes  much  farther  back  than  to 
the  time  I  have  mentioned.  Ivan  the 
Third,  in  1482,  having  espoused  a  Gre 
cian  princess,  heiress  of  the  last  Greek 
Emperor,  discarded  St.  George  from  the 
Russian  arms,  and  adopted  the  Greek 
two-headed  black  eagle,  which  has  con 
tinued  in  the  Russian  arms  to  the  pres 
ent  day.  In  virtue  of  the  same  marriage, 
the  Russian  princes  claim  the  Greek 
throne  as  their  inheritance. 

Under  Peter  the  Great,  the  policy  of 
Russia  developed  itself  more  fully.  In 
1696,  he  rendered  himself  master  of 
Azof,  and,  in  1698,  obtained  the  right  to 
pass  the  Dardanelles,  and  to  maintain, 
by  that  route,  commercial  intercourse 
with  the  Mediterranean.  He  had  emissa 
ries  throughout  Greece,  and  particularly 
applied  himself  to  gain  the  clergy.  He 
adopted  the  Labarum  of  Constantine, 
"In  hoc  signo  vinces";  and  medals 
were  struck,  with  the  inscription,  "Pe- 
trus  I.  Russo  -  Grsecorum  Imperator." 
In  whatever  new  direction  the  princi 
ples  of  the  Holy  Alliance  may  now  lead 
the  politics  of  Russia,  or  whatever  course 
she  may  suppose  Christianity  now  pre 
scribes  to  her,  in  regard  to  the  Greek 
cause,  the  time  has  been  when  she  pro 
fessed  to  be  contending  for  that  cause, 
as  identified  with  Christianity.  The 
white  banner  under  which  the  soldiers 
of  Peter  the  First  usually  fought,  bore, 


70 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


as  its  inscription,  "  In  the  name  of  the 
Prince,  and  for  our  country."  Relying 
on  the  aid  of  the  Greeks,  in  his  war 
with  the  Porte,  he  changed  the  white 
flag  to  red,  and  displayed  on  it  the  words, 
"In  the  name  of  God,  and  for  Christi 
anity."  The  unfortunate  issue  of  this 
war  is  well  known.  Though  Anne  and 
Elizabeth,  the  successors  of  Peter,  did 
not  possess  his  active  character,  they 
kept  up  a  constant  communication  with 
Greece,  and  held  out  hopes  of  restoring 
the  Greek  empire.  Catharine  the  Sec 
ond,  as  is  well  known,  excited  a  general 
revolt  in  1769.  A  Russian  fleet  ap 
peared  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  a  Rus 
sian  army  was  landed  in  the  Morea. 
The  Greeks  in  the  end  were  disgusted 
at  being  expected  to  take  an  oath  of  alle 
giance  to  Russia,  and  the  Empress  was 
disgusted  because  they  refused  to  take 
it.  In  1774,  peace  was  signed  between 
Russia  and  the  Porte,  and  the  Greeks  of 
the  Morea  were  left  to  their  fate.  By 
this  treaty  the  Porte  acknowledged  the 
independence  of  the  Khan  of  the  Crimea; 
a  preliminary  step  to  the  acquisition  of 
that  country  by  Russia.  It  is  not  un 
worthy  of  remark,  as  a  circumstance 
which  distinguished  this  from  most 
other  diplomatic  transactions,  that  it 
conceded  to  the  cabinet  of  St.  Peters 
burg  the  right  of  intervention  in  the 
interior  affairs  of  Turkey,  in  regard 
to  whatever  concerned  the  religion  of 
the  Greeks.  The  cruelties  and  massa 
cres  that  happened  to  the  Greeks  after 
the  peace  between  Russia  and  the  Porte, 
notwithstanding  the  general  pardon 
which  had  been  stipulated  for  them, 
need  not  now  be  recited.  Instead  of 
retracing  the  deplorable  picture,  it  is 
enough  to  say,  that  in  this  respect  the 
past  is  justly  reflected  in  the  present. 
The  Empress  soon  after  invaded  and 
conquered  the  Crimea,  and  on  one  of  the 
gates  of  Kerson,  its  capital,  caused  to 
be  inscribed,  "  The  road  to  Byzantium." 
The  present  Emperor,  on  his  accession 
to  the  throne,  manifested  an  intention 
to  adopt  the  policy  of  Catharine  the 
Second  as  his  own,  and  the  world  has 
not  been  right  in  all  its  suspicions,  if  a 
project  for  the  partition  of  Turkey  did 


not  form  a  part  of  the  negotiations  of 
Napoleon  and  Alexander  at  Tilsit. 

All  this  course  of  policy  seems  sud 
denly  to  be  changed.  Turkey  is  no 
longer  regarded,  it  would  appear,  as  an 
object  of  partition  or  acquisition,  and 
Greek  revolts  have  all  at  once  become, 
according  to  the  declaration  of  Laybach, 
"criminal  combinations."  The  recent 
congress  at  Verona  exceeded  its  prede 
cessor  at  Laybach  in  its  denunciations  of 
the  Greek  struggle.  In  the  circular  of 
the  14th  of  December,  1822,  it  declared 
the  Grecian  resistance  to  the  Turkish 
power  to  be  rash  and  oulpable,  and  la 
mented  that  "the  firebrand  of  rebel 
lion  had  been  thrown  into  the  Otto 
man  empire."  This  rebuke  and  crimi 
nation  we  know  to  have  proceeded  on 
.those  settled  principles  of  conduct  which 
the  Continental  powers  had  prescribed 
for  themselves.  The  sovereigns  saw,  as 
well  as  others,  the  real  condition  of  the 
Greeks;  they  knew  as  well  as  others 
that  it  was  most  natural  and  most  justi 
fiable,  that  they  should  endeavor,  at 
whatever  hazard,  to  change  that  condi 
tion.  They  knew  that  they  themselves, 
or  at  least  one  of  them,  had  more  than 
once  urged  the  Greeks  to  similar  efforts ; 
that  they  themselves  had  thrown  the 
same  firebrand  into  the  midst  of  the 
Ottoman  empire.  And  yet,  so  much 
does  it  seem  to  be  their  fixed  object  to 
discountenance  whatsoever  threatens  to 
disturb  the  actual  government  of  any 
country,  that,  Christians  as  they  were, 
and  allied,  as  they  professed  to  be,  for 
purposes  most  important  to  human  hap 
piness  and  religion,  they  have  not  hesi 
tated  to  declare  to  the  world  that  they 
have  wholly  forborne  to  exercise  any 
compassion  to  the  Greeks,  simply  be 
cause  they  thought  that  they  saw,  in  the 
struggles  of  the  Morea,  the  sign  of  revo 
lution.  This,  then,  is  coming  to  a  plain, 
practical  result.  The  Grecian  revolution 
has  been  discouraged,  discountenanced, 
and  denounced,  solely  because  it  is  a 
revolution.  Independent  of  all  inquiry 
into  the  reasonableness  of  its  causes  or 
the  enormity  of  the  oppression  which 
produced  it;  regardless  of  the  peculiar 
claims  which  Greece  possesses  upon  the 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


71 


civilized  world;  and  regardless  of  what 
has  been  their  own  conduct  towards  her 
for  a  century ;  regardless  of  the  interest 
of  the  Christian  religion,  —  the  sover 
eigns  at  Verona  seized  upon  the  case  of 
the  Greek  revolution  as  one  above  all 
others  calculated  to  illustrate  the  fixed 
principles  of  their  policy.  The  abomi 
nable  rule  of  the  Porte  on  one  side,  the 
value  and  the  sufferings  of  the  Christian 
Greeks  on  the  other,  furnished  a  case 
likely  to  convince  even  an  incredulous 
world  of  the  sincerity  of  the  professions 
of  the  Allied  Powers.  They  embraced 
the  occasion  with  apparent  ardor:  and 
the  world,  I  trust,  is  satisfied. 

We  see  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
direct  and  actual  application  of  that 
system  which  I  have  attempted  to  de 
scribe.  We  see  it  in  the  very  case  of 
Greece.  We  learn,  authentically  and 
indisputably,  that  the  Allied  Powers, 
holding  that  all  changes  in  legislation 
and  administration  ought  to  proceed 
from  kings  alone,  were  wholly  inexora 
ble  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Greeks,  and 
entirely  hostile  to  their  success.  Now 
it  is  upon  this  practical  result  of  the 
principle  of  the  Continental  powers  that 
I  wish  this  House  to  intimate  its  opin 
ion.  The  great  question  is  a  question 
of  principle.  Greece  is  only  the  signal 
instance  of  the  application  of  that  prin 
ciple.  If  the  principle  be  right,  if  we 
esteem  it  conformable  to  the  law  of  na 
tions,  if  we  have  nothing  to  say  against 
it,  or  if  we  deem  ourselves  unfit  to  ex 
press  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  then,  of 
course,  no  resolution  ought  to  pass.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  see  in  the  declara 
tions  of  the  Allied  Powers  principles,  not 
only  utterly  hostile  to  our  own  free  insti 
tutions,  but  hostile  also  to  the  inde 
pendence  of  all  nations,  and  altogether 
opposed  to  the  improvement  of  the  con 
dition  of  human  nature;  if,  in  the  in 
stance  before  us,  we  see  a  most  striking 
exposition  and  application  of  those  prin 
ciples,  and  if  we  deem  our  opinions  to 
be  entitled  to  any  weight  in  the  estima 
tion  of  mankind,  —  then  I  think  it  is 
our  duty  to  adopt  some  such  measure 
as  the  proposed  resolution. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  Sir,  that 


as  early  as  July,  1821,  Baron  Strogonoff, 
the  Russian  minister  at  Constantinople, 
represented  to  the  Porte,  that,  if  the  un 
distinguished  massacres  of  the  Greeks, 
both  of  such  as  were  in  open  resistance 
and  of  those  who  remained  patient  in 
their  submission  were  continued,  and 
should  become  a  settled  habit,  they 
would  give  just  cause  of  war  against  the 
Porte  to  all  Christian  states.  This  was 
in  1821. l  It  was  followed,  early  in  the 
next  year,  by  that  indescribable  enor 
mity,  that  appalling  monument  of  bar 
barian  cruelty,  the  destruction  of  Scio; 
a  scene  I  shall  not  attempt  to  describe ;  a 
scene  from  which  human  nature  shrinks 
shuddering  away;  a  scene  having  hardly 
a  parallel  in  the  history  of  fallen  man. 
This  scene,  too,  was  quickly  followed  by 
the  massacres  in  Cyprus ;  and  all  these 
things  were  perfectly  known  to  the 
Christian  powers  assembled  at  Verona. 
Yet  these  powers,  instead  of  acting  upon 
the  case  supposed  by  Baron  Strogonoff, 
and  which  one  would  think  had  been 
then  fully  made  out,  —  instead  of  being 
moved  by  any  compassion  for  the  suffer 
ings  of  the  Greeks,  —  these  powers,  these 
Christian  powers,  rebuke  their  gallantry 
and  insult  their  sufferings  by  accusing 
them  of  "  throwing  a  firebrand  into  the 
Ottoman  empire."  Such,  Sir,  appear 
to  me  to  be  the  principles  on  which  the 
Continental  powers  of  Europe  have 
agreed  hereafter  to  act;  and  this,  an 
eminent  instance  of  the  application  of 
those  principles. 

I  shall  not  detain  the  committee,  Mr. 
Chairman,  by  any  attempt  to  recite  the 
events  of  the  Greek  struggle  up  to  the 
present  time.  Its  origin  may  be  found, 
doubtless,  in  that  improved  state  of 
knowledge  which,  for  some  years,  has 
been  gradually  taking  place  in  that 
country.  The  emancipation  of  the 
Greeks  has  been  a  subject  frequently 
discussed  in  modern  times.  They  them 
selves  are  represented  as  having  a  vivid 
remembrance  of  the  distinction  of  their 
ancestors,  not  unmixed  with  an  indig 
nant  feeling  that  civilized  and  Christian 
Europe  should  not  ere  now  have  aided 

l  Annual  Register  for  1821,  p.  251. 


72 


THE    REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


them     in     breaking    their     intolerable 
fetters. 

In  1816  a  society  was  founded  in 
Vienna  for  the  encouragement  of  Gre 
cian  literature.  It  was  connected  with 
a  similar  institution  at  Athens,  and 
another  in  Thessaly,  called  the  "  Gym 
nasium  of  Mount  Pelion."  The  treas 
ury  and  general  office  of  the  institution 
were  established  at  Munich.  No  politi 
cal  object  was  avowed  by  these  insti 
tutions,  probably  none  contemplated. 
Still,  however,  they  had  their  effect,  no 
doubt,  in  hastening  that  condition  of 
things  in  which  the  Greeks  felt  compe 
tent  to  the  establishment  of  their  inde 
pendence.  Many  young  men  have  been 
for  years  annually  sent  to  the  universi 
ties  in  the  western  states  of  Europe  for 
their  education;  and,  after  the  general 
pacification  of  Europe,  many  military 
men,  discharged  from  other  employ 
ment,  were  ready  to  enter  even  into  so 
unpromising  a  service  as  that  of  the 
revolutionary  Greeks. 

In  1820,  war  commenced  between  the 
Porte  and  Ali,  the  well-known  Pacha  of 
Albania.  Differences  existed  also  with 
Persia  and  with  Russia.  In  this  state 
of  things,  at  the  beginning  of  1821, 
an  insurrection  broke  out  in  Moldavia, 
under  the  direction  of  Alexander  Ypsi- 
lanti,  a  well-educated  soldier,  who  had 
been  major-general  in  the  Russian 
service.  From  his  character,  and  the 
number  of  those  who  seemed  inclined  to 
join  him,  he  was  supposed  to  be  coun 
tenanced  by  the  court  of  St.  Petersburg. 
This,  however,  was  a  great  mistake, 
which  the  Emperor,  then  at  Laybach, 
took  an  early  opportunity  to  rectify. 
The  Turkish  government  was  alarmed 
at  these  occurrences  in  the  northern 
provinces  of  European  Turkey,  and 
caused  search  to  be  made  of  all  vessels 
entering  the  Black  Sea,  lest  arms  or 
other  military  means  should  be  sent  in 
that  manner  to  the  insurgents.  This 
proved  inconvenient  to  the  commerce  of 
Russia,  and  caused  some  unsatisfactory 
correspondence  between  the  two  powers. 
It  may  be  worthy  of  remark,  as  an 
exhibition  of  national  character,  that, 
agitated  by  these  appearances  of  intes 


tine  commotion,   the    Sultan   issued    a 
proclamation,  calling   on  all  true  Mus 
sulmans  to  renounce  the  pleasures  of 
social  life,  to  prepare  arms  and  horses, 
and  to  return  to  the   manner  of  their 
ancestors,  the  life  of  the  plains.     The 
Turk  seems  to  have  thought  that  he  had, 
at  last,  caught  something  of  the  danger 
ous  contagion  of  European  civilization, 
and   that  it  was   necessary   to    reform 
his  habits,  by  recurring  to  the  original 
manners  of  military  roving  barbarians. 
It  was  about  this  time,  that  is  to  say, 
at   the    commencement   of    1821,    that 
the  revolution  burst  out  in  various  parts 
of  Greece  and  the  isles.     Circumstances, 
certainly,  were  not  unfavorable  to  the 
movement,  as  one  portion  of  the  Turk 
ish   army  was    employed    in    the  war 
against  Ali  Pacha  in  Albania,  and  an 
other  part  in  the  provinces  north  of  the 
Danube.      The    Greeks   soon   possessed 
themselves  of  the  open  country  of  the 
Morea,  and  drove  their  enemy  into  the 
fortresses.     Of  these,  that  of  Tripolitza, 
with  the  city,  fell  into  their  hands,  in 
the    course    of    the    summer.     Having 
after   these  first    movements    obtained 
time  to  breathe,  it  became,  of  course, 
an  early  object  to   establish  a  govern 
ment.      For  this  purpose   delegates  of 
the  people  assembled,  under  that  name 
which  describes  the  assembly  in   which 
we    ourselves    sit,    that     name    which 
"freed  the  Atlantic,"  a    Congress.     A 
writer,  who  undertakes  to  render  to  the 
civilized  world  that  service  which  was 
once  performed   by  Edmund  Burke,  I 
mean  the  compiler  of  the  English  An 
nual  Register,  asks,  by  what  authority 
this   assembly  could   call  itself  a  Con 
gress.     Simply,    Sir,    by  the   same   au 
thority   by   which    the    people    of    the 
United    States    have    given    the   same 
name  to  their  own  legislature.     We,  at 
least,   should   be   naturally  inclined   to 
think,   riot  only  as  far  as   names,  but 
things    also,    are    concerned,  that    the 
reeks  could  hardly  have  begun  their 
revolution  under  better  auspices ;   since 
hey  have  endeavored  to  render  applica 
ble  to  themselves  the  general  principles 
of  our  form  of  government,  as  well  as 
its  name.     This  constitution  went  into 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


73 


operation  at  the  commencement  of  the 
next  year.  In  the  mean  time,  the  war 
with  AH  Pacha  was  ended,  he  having 
surrendered,  and  being  afterwards  as 
sassinated,  by  an  instance  of  treachery 
and  perfidy,  which,  if  it  had  happened 
elsewhere  than  under  the  government  of 
the  Turks,  would  have  deserved  notice. 
The  negotiation  with  Russia,  too,  took 
a  turn  unfavorable  to  the  Greeks.  The 
great  point  upon  which  Russia  insisted, 
beside  the  abandonment  of  the  measure 
of  searching  vessels  bound  to  the  Black 
Sea,  was,  that  the  Porte  should  with 
draw  its  armies  from  the  neighborhood 
of  the  Russian  frontiers;  and  the  imme 
diate  consequence  of  this,  when  effected, 
was  to  add  so  much  more  to  the  disposa 
ble  force  ready  to  be  employed  against 
the  Greeks.  These  events  seemed  to 
have  left  the  whole  force  of  the  Ottoman 
empire,  at  the  commencement  of  1822, 
in  a  condition  to  be  employed  against 
the  Greek  rebellion;  and,  accordingly, 
very  many  anticipated  the  immediate 
destruction  of  the  cause.  The  event, 
however,  was  ordered  otherwise.  Where 
the  greatest  effort  was  made,  it  was  met 
and  defeated.  Entering  the  Morea  with 
an  army  which  seemed  capable  of  bear 
ing  down  all  resistance,  the  Turks  were 
nevertheless  defeated  and  driven  back, 
and  pursued  beyond  the  isthmus,  within 
which,  as  far  as  it  appears,  from  that 
time  to  the  present,  they  have  not  been 
able  to  set  their  foot. 

It  was  in  April  of  this  year  that  the 
destruction  of  Scio  took  place.  That 
island,  a  sort  of  appanage  of  the  Sul 
tana  mother,  enjoyed  many  privileges 
peculiar  to  itself.  In  a  population  of 
130,000  or  140,000,  it  had  no  more  than 
2,000  or  3,000  Turks;  indeed,  by  some 
accounts,  not  near  as  many.  The  ab 
sence  of  these  ruffian  masters  had  in 
some  degree  allowed  opportunity  for  the 
promotion  of  knowledge,  the  accumula 
tion  of  wealth,  and  the  general  cultiva 
tion  of  society.  Here  was  the  seat  of 
modern  Greek  literature;  here  were 
libraries,  printing-presses,  and  other  es 
tablishments,  which  indicate  some  ad 
vancement  in  refinement  and  knowledge. 
Certain  of  the  inhabitants  of  Samos,  it 


would  seem,  envious  of  this  comparative 
happiness  of  Scio,  landed  upon  the  isl 
and  in  an  irregular  multitude,  for  the 
purpose  of  compelling  its  inhabitants  to 
make  common  cause  with  their  country 
men  against  their  oppressors.  These, 
being  joined  by  the  peasantry,  marched 
to  the  city  and  drove  the  Turks  into  the 
castle.  The  Turkish  fleet,  lately  rein 
forced  from  Egypt,  happened  to  be  in 
the  neighboring  seas,  and,  learning 
these  events,  landed  a  force  on  the  isl 
and  of  fifteen  thousand  men.  There 
was  nothing  to  resist  such  an  army. 
These  troops  immediately  entered  the 
city  and  began  an  indiscriminate  mas 
sacre.  The  city  wra.s  fired ;  and  in  four 
days  the  fire  and  sword  of  the  Turk  ren 
dered  the  beautiful  Scio  a  clotted  mass 
of  blood  and  ashes.  The  details  are  too 
shocking  to  be  recited.  Forty  thousand 
women  and  children,  unhappily  saved 
from  the  general  destruction ,  were  after 
wards  sold  in  the  market  of  Smyrna, 
and  sent  off  into  distant  and  hopeless 
servitude.  Even  on  the  wharves  of  our 
own  cities,  it  has  been  said,  have  been 
sold  the  utensils  of  those  hearths  which 
now  exist  no  longer.  Of  the  whole 
population  which  I  have  mentioned,  not 
above  nine  hundred  persons  were  left 
living  upon  the  island.  I  will  only 
repeat,  Sir,  that  these  tragical  scenes 
were  as  fully  known  at  the  Congress  of 
Verona,  as  they  are  now  known  to  us ; 
and  it  is  not  too  much  to  call  on  the 
powers  that  constituted  that  congress, 
in  the  name  of  conscience  and  in  the 
name  of  humanity,  to  tell  us  if  there  be 
nothing  even  in  these  unparalleled  ex 
cesses  of  Turkish  barbarity  to  excite  a 
sentiment  of  compassion ;  nothing  which 
they  regard  as  so  objectionable  as  even 
the  very  idea  of  popular  resistance  to 
power. 

The  events  of  the  year  which  has  just 
passed  by,  as  far  as  they  have  become 
known  to  us,  have  been  even  more  favor 
able  to  the  Greeks  than  those  of  the 
year  preceding.  I  omit  all  details,  as 
being  as  well  known  to  others  as  to  my 
self.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  with  no  other 
enemy  to  contend  with,  and  no  diversion 
of  his  force  to  other  objects,  the  Porte 


74 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE. 


has  not  been  able  to  cany  the  war  into 
the  Morea;  and  that,  by  the  last  ac 
counts,  its  armies  were  acting  defensively 
in  Thessaly.  I  pass  over,  also,  the  naval 
engagements  of  the  Greeks,  although 
that  is  a  mode  of  warfare  in  which  they 
are  calculated  to  excel,  and  in  which 
they  have  already  performed  actions  of 
such  distinguished  skill  and  bravery,  as 
would  draw  applause  upon  the  best 
mariners  in  the  world.  The  present 
state  of  the  war  would  seem  to  be,  that 
the  Greeks  possess  the  whole  of  the 
Morea,  with  the  exception  of  the  three 
fortresses  of  Patras,  Coron,  and  Modon; 
all  Candia,  but  one  fortress;  and  most 
of  the  other  islands.  They  possess  the 
citadel  of  Athens,  Missolonghi,  and  sev 
eral  other  places  in  Livadia.  They 
have  been  able  to  act  on  the  offensive, 
and  to  carry  the  war  beyond  the  isthmus. 
There  is  no  reason  to  believe  their  ma 
rine  is  weakened;  more  probably,  it  is 
strengthened.  But,  what  is  most  impor 
tant  of  all,  they  have  obtained  time  and 
experience.  They  have  awakened  a  sym 
pathy  throughout  Europe  and  through 
out  America;  and  they  have  formed  a 
government  which  seems  suited  to  the 
emergency  of  their  condition. 

Sir,  they  have  done  much.  It  would 
be  great  injustice  to  compare  their 
achievements  with  our  own.  We  began 
our  Revolution,  already  possessed  of 
government,  and,  comparatively,  of  civil 
liberty.  Our  ancestors  had  from  the 
first  been  accustomed  in  a  great  measure 
to  govern  themselves.  They  were  famil 
iar  with  popular  elections  and  legislative 
assemblies,  and  well  acquainted  with  the 
general  principles  and  practice  of  free 
governments.  They  had  little  else  to  do 
than  to  throw  off  the  paramount  author 
ity  of  the  parent  state.  Enough  was 
still  left,  both  of  law  and  of  organiza 
tion,  to  conduct  society  in  its  accustomed 
course,  and  to  unite  men  together  for  a 
common  object.  The  Greeks,  of  course, 
could  act  with  little  concert  at  the  be 
ginning;  they  were  unaccustomed  to  the 
exercise  of  power,  without  experience, 
with  limited  knowledge,  without  aid, 
and  surrounded  by  nations  which,  what 
ever  claims  the  Greeks  might  seem  to 


have  upon  them,  have  afforded  them 
nothing  but  discouragement  and  re 
proach.  They  have  held  out,  however, 
for  three  campaigns ;  and  that,  at  least, 
is  something.  Constantinople  and  the 
northern  provinces  have  sent  forth  thou 
sands  of  troops;  —  they  have  been  de 
feated.  Tripoli,  and  Algiers,  and  Egypt, 
have  contributed  their  marine  contin 
gents  ;  —  they  have  not  kept  the  ocean. 
Hordes  of  Tartars  have  crossed  the  Bos- 
phorus;  —  they  have  died  where  the 
Persians  died.  The  powerful  monar 
chies  in  the  neighborhood  have  de 
nounced  their  cause,  and  admonished 
them  to  abandon  it  and  submit  to  their 
fate.  They  have  answered  them,  that, 
although  two  hundred  thousand  of  their 
countrymen  have  offered  up  their  lives, 
there  yet  remain  lives  to  offer ;  and  that 
it  is  the  determination  of  a//,  "yes,  of 
ALL,"  to  persevere  until  they  shall  have 
established  their  liberty,  or  until  the 
power  of  their  oppressors  shall  have  re 
lieved  them  from  the  burden  of  exist 
ence. 

It  may  now  be  asked,  perhaps,  whether 
the  expression  of  our  own  sympathy,  and 
that  of  the  country,  may  do  them  good? 
I  hope  it  may.  It  may  give  them  cour 
age  and  spirit,  it  may  assure  them  of 
public  regard,  teach  them  that  they  are 
not  wholly  forgotten  by  the  civilized 
world,  and  inspire  them  with  constancy 
in  the  pursuit  of  their  great  end.  At 
any  rate,  Sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
measure  which  I  have  proposed  is  due 
to  our  own  character,  and  called  for  by 
our  own  duty.  When  we  shall  have 
discharged  that  duty,  we  may  leave  the 
rest  to  the  disposition  of  Providence. 

I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  doubted 
that  this  measure  is  entirely  pacific.  I 
profess  my  inability  to  perceive  that  it 
has  any  possible  tendency  to  involve  our 
neutral  relations.  If  the  resolution  pass, 
it  is  not  of  necessity  to  be  immediately 
acted  on.  It  will  not  be  acted  on  at  all, 
unless,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President, 
a  proper  and  safe  occasion  for  acting 
upon  it  shall  arise.  If  we  adopt  the 
resolution  to-day,  our  relations  with 
every  foreign  state  will  be  to-morrow 
precisely  what  they  now  are.  The  reso- 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


lution  will  be  sufficient  to  express  our 
sentiments  on  the  subjects  to  which  I 
have  adverted.  Useful  for  that  purpose, 
it  can  be  mischievous  for  no  purpose. 
If  the  topic  were  properly  introduced 
into  the  message,  it  cannot  be  improperly 
introduced  into  discussion  in  this  House. 
If  it  were  proper,  which  no  one  doubts, 
for  the  President  to  express  his  opinions 
upon  it,  it  cannot,  I  think,  be  improper 
for  us  to  express  ours.  The  only  certain 
effect  of  this  resolution  is  to  signify,  in 
a  form  usual  in  bodies  constituted  like 
this,  our  approbation  of  the  general 
sentiment  of  the  message.  Do  we  wish 
to  withhold  that  approbation?  The  res 
olution  confers  on  the  President  no  new 
power,  nor  does  it  enjoin  on  him  the 
exercise  of  any  new  duty;  nor  does  it 
hasten  him  in  the  discharge  of  any  exist 
ing  duty. 

I  cannot  imagine  that  this  resolution 
can  add  any  thing  to  those  excitements 
which  it  has  been  supposed,  I  think  very 
causelessly,  might  possibly  provoke  the 
Turkish  government  to  acts  of  hostility. 
There  is  already  the  message,  expressing 
the  hope  of  success  to  the  Greeks  and 
disaster  to  the  Turks,  in  a  much  stronger 
manner  than  is  to  be  implied  from  the 
terms  of  this  resolution.  There  is  the 
correspondence  between  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  the  Greek  Agent  in  London, 
already  made  public,  in  which  similar 
wishes  are  expressed,  and  a  continuance 
of  the  correspondence  apparently  in 
vited.  I  might  add  to  this,  the  unex 
ampled  burst  of  feeling  which  this  cause 
has  called  forth  from  all  classes  of  so 
ciety,  and  the  notorious  fact  of  pecuniary 
contributions  made  throughout  the  coun 
try  for  its  aid  and  advancement.  After 
all  this,  whoever  can  see  cause  of  danger 
to  our  pacific  relations  from  the  adoption 
of  this  resolution  has  a  keener  vision 
than  I  can  pretend  to.  Sir,  there  is  no 
augmented  danger;  there  is  no  danger. 
The  question  comes  at  last  to  this, 
whether,  on  a  subject  of  this  sort,  this 
House  holds  an  opinion  which  is  worthy 
to  be  expressed. 

Even  suppose,  Sir,  an  agent  or  com 
missioner  were  to  be  immediately  sent, 
—  a  measure  which  I  myself  believe  to 


be  the  proper  one,  —  there  is  no  breach 
of  neutrality,  nor  any  just  cause  of 
offence.  Such  an  agent,  of  course, 
would  not  be  accredited;  he  would  not 
be  a  public  minister.  The  object  would 
be  inquiry  and  information;  inquiry 
which  we  have  a  right  to  make,  infor 
mation  which  we  are  interested  to  pos 
sess.  If  a  dismemberment  of  the  Turkish 
empire  be  taking  place,  or  has  already 
taken  place ;  if  a  new  state  be  rising,  or 
be  already  risen,  in  the  Mediterranean, — 
who  can  doubt,  that,  without  any  breach 
of  neutrality,  we  may  inform  ourselves 
of  these  events  for  the  government  of 
our  own  concerns?  The  Greeks  have 
declared  the  Turkish  coasts  in  a  state  of 
blockade;  may  we  not  inform  ourselves 
whether  this  blockade  be  nominal  or 
real?  and,  of  course,  whether  it  shall  be 
regarded  or  disregarded?  The  greater 
our  trade  may  happen  to  be  with  Smyrna, 
a  consideration  which  seems  to  have 
alarmed  some  gentlemen,  the  greater  is 
the  reason,  in  my  opinion,  why  we 
should  seek  to  be  accurately  informed 
of  those  events  which  may  affect  its 
safety.  It  seems  to  me  impossible, 
therefore,  for  any  reasonable  man  to 
imagine  that  this  resolution  can  expose 
us  to  the  resentment  of  the  Sublime 
Porte. 

As  little  reason  is  there  for  fearing  its 
consequences  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
Allied  Powers.  They  may,  very  natu 
rally,  dislike  our  sentiments  upon  the 
subject  of  the  Greek  revolution;  but 
what  those  sentiments  are  they  will 
much  more  explicitly  learn  in  the  Pres 
ident's  message  than  in  this  resolution. 
They  might,  indeed,  prefer  that  we 
should  express  no  dissent  from  the  doc 
trines  which  they  have  avowed,  and  the 
application  which  they  have  made  of 
those  doctrines  to  the  case  of  Greece. 
But  I  trust  we  are  not  disposed  to  leave 
them  in  any  doubt  as  to  our  sentiments 
upon  these  important  subjects.  They 
have  expressed  their  opinions,  and  do 
not  call  that  expression  of  opinion  an 
interference;  in  which  respect  they  are 
right,  as  the  expression  of  opinion  in 
such  cases  is  not  such  an  interference  as 
would  justify  the  Greeks  in  considering 


76 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


the  powers  at  war  with  them.  For  the 
same  reason,  any  expression  which  we 
may  make  of  different  principles  and 
different  sympathies  is  no  interference. 
No  one  would  call  the  President's  mes 
sage  an  interference ;  and  yet  it  is  much 
stronger  in  that  respect  than  this  reso 
lution.  If  either  of  them  could  be  con 
strued  to  be  an  interference,  no  doubt  it 
would  be  improper,  at  least  it  would  be 
so  according  to  my  view  of  the  subject; 
for  the  very  thing  which  I  have  at 
tempted  to  resist  in  the  course  of  these 
observations  is  the  right  of  foreign  inter 
ference.  But  neither  the  message  nor 
the  resolution  has  that  character.  There 
is  not  a  power  in  Europe  which  can  sup 
pose,  that,  in  expressing  our  opinions  on 
this  occasion,  we  are  governed  by  any 
desire  of  aggrandizing  ourselves  or  of 
injuring  others.  We  do  no  more  than 
to  maintain  those  established  principles 
in  which  we  have  an  interest  in  common 
with  other  nations,  and  to  resist  the  in 
troduction  of  new  principles  and  new 
rules,  calculated  to  destroy  the  relative 
independence  of  states,  and  particularly 
hostile  to  the  whole  fabric  of  our  gov 
ernment. 

I  close,  then,  Sir,  with  repeating,  that 
the  object  of  this  resolution  is  to  avail 
ourselves  of  the  interesting  occasion  of 


the  Greek  revolution  to  make  our  pro 
test  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Allied 
Powers,  both  as  they  are  laid  down  in 
principle  and  as  they  are  applied  in 
practice.  «I  think  it  right,  too,  Sir,  not 
to  be  unseasonable  in  the  expression  of 
our  regard,  and,  as  far  as  that  goes,  in 
a  manifestation  of  our  sympathy  with  a 
long  oppressed  and  now  struggling  peo 
ple.  I  am  not  of  those  who  would,  in 
the  hour  of  utmost  peril,  withhold  such 
encouragement  as  might  be  properly  and 
lawfully  given,  and,  when  the  crisis 
should  be  past,  overwhelm  the  rescued 
sufferer  with  kindness  and  caresses. 
The  Greeks  address  the  civilized  world 
with  a  pathos  not  easy  to  be  resisted. 
They  invoke  our  favor  by  more  moving 
considerations  than  can  well  belong  to 
the  condition  of  any  other  people.  They 
stretch  out  their  arms  to  the  Christian 
communities  of  the  earth,  beseeching 
them,  by  a  generous  recollection  of  their 
ancestors,  by  the  consideration  of  their 
desolated  and  ruined  cities  and  villages, 
by  their  wives  and  children  sold  into  an 
accursed  slavery,  by  their  blood^  which 
they  seem  willing  to  pour  out  like  water, 
by  the  common  faith,  and  in  the  name, 
which  unites  all  Christians,  that  they 
would  extend  to  them  at  least  some  token 
of  compassionate  regard. 


THE     TARIFF. 


A    SPEECH    DELIVERED    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES    OF    THE 
UNITED  STATES,    ON  THE    IST  AND  2o  OF  APRIL,  1824. 


[Ax  an  early  period  of  the  session  of  Con 
gress  of  1823-24  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Representatives  to  amend  the 
several  acts  laying  duties  on  imports.  The 
object  of  the  bill  was  a  comprehensive  re 
vision  of  the  existing  laws,  with  a  view  to 
the  extension  of  the  protective  system.  The 
bill  became  the  subject  of  a  protracted  de 
bate,  in  which  much  of  the  talent  of  the 
House  on  both  sides  was  engaged.  Mr. 
Webster  took  an  active  part  in  the  discus 
sion,  and  spoke  upon  many  of  the  details  of 
the  bill,  while  it  remained  in  the  committee 
of  the  whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union.  Several  objectionable  provisions 
were  removed,  and  various  amendments 
were  introduced  upon  his  motion ;  and  it 
was  a  matter  of  regret  to  him,  as  seen  in 
the  following  speech,  that  the  friends  of  the 
bill  were  not  able  or  willing  to  bring  it  into 
a  form  in  which,  as  a  whole,  he  could  give 
it  his  support.  On  the  30th  and  31st  of 
March,  Mr.  Clay,  Speaker  of  the  House, 
addressed  the  committee  of  the  whole,  at 
length  and  with  great  ability,  on  the  gen 
eral  principles  of  the  bill ;  and  he  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  1st  and  2d 
of  April,  in  the  following  speech.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  will  avail  my 
self  of  the  present  occasion  to  make 
some  remarks  on  certain  principles  and 
opinions  which  have  been  recently  ad 
vanced,  and  on  those  considerations 
which,  in  my  judgment,  ought  to  gov 
ern  us  in  deciding  upon  the  several  and 
respective  parts  of  this  very  important 
and  complex  measure.  I  can  truly  say 
that  this  is  a  painful  duty.  I  deeply  re 
gret  the  necessity  which  is  likely  to  be 
imposed  upon  me  of  giving  a  general 
affirmative  or  negative  vote  on  the  whole 
of  the  bill.  I  cannot  but  think  this 
mode  of  proceeding  liable  to  great  objec 


tions.  It  exposes  both  those  who  sup 
port  and  those  who  oppose  the  measure 
to  very  unjust  and  injurious  misappre 
hensions.  There  may  be  good  reasons 
for  favoring  some  of  the  provisions  of 
the  bill,  and  equally  strong  reasons  for 
opposing  others ;  and  these  provisions  do 
not  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of 
principal  and  incident.  If  that  were  the 
case,  those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  prin 
cipal  might  forego  their  opinions  upon 
incidental  and  subordinate  provisions. 
But  the  bill  proposes  enactments  entirely 
distinct  and  different  from  one  another 
in  character  and  tendency.  Some  of  its 
clauses  are  intended  merely  for  revenue ; 
and  of  those  which  regard  the  protection 
of  home  manufactures,  one  part  stands 
upon  very  different  grounds  from  those 
of  other  parts.  So  that  probably  every 
gentleman  who  may  ultimately  support 
the  bill  will  vote  for  much  which 
his  judgment  does  not  approve;  and 
those  who  oppose  it  will  oppose  some 
thing  which  they  would  very  gladly  sup 
port. 

Being  intrusted  with  the  interests  of 
a  district  highly  commercial,  and  deeply 
interested  in  manufactures  also,  I  -wish 
to  state  my  opinions  on  the  present 
measure,  not  as  on  a  whole,  for  it  has  no 
entire  and  homogeneous  character,  but 
as  on  a  collection  of  different  enact 
ments,  some  of  which  meet  my  approba 
tion  and  some  of  which  do  not. 

And  allow  me,  Sir,  in  the  first  place, 
to  state  my  regret,  if  indeed  I  ought 
not  to  express  a  warmer  sentiment,  at 


78 


THE   TARIFF. 


the  names  or  designations  which  Mr. 
Speaker  l  has  seen  fit  to  adopt  for  the 
purpose  of  describing  the  advocates  and 
the  opposers  of  the  present  bill.  It  is  a 
question,  he  says,  between  the  friends  of 
an  "American  policy"  and  those  of  a 
"foreign  policy."  This,  Sir,  is  an  as 
sumption  which  I  take  the  liberty  most 
directly  to  deny.  Mr.  Speaker  certainly 
intended  nothing  invidious  or  deroga 
tory  to  any  part  of  the  House  by  this 
mode  of  denominating  friends  and  ene 
mies.  But  there  is  power  in  names, 
and  this  manner  of  distinguishing  those 
who  favor  and  those  who  oppose  partic 
ular  measures  may  lead  to  inferences  to 
which  no  member  of  the  House  can 
submit.  It  may  imply  that  there  is  a 
more  exclusive  and  peculiar  regard  to 
American  interests  in  one  class  of  opin 
ions  than  in  another.  Such  an  impli 
cation  is  to  be  resisted  and  repelled. 
Every  member  has  a  right  to  the  pre 
sumption,  that  he  pursues  what  he  be 
lieves  to  be  the  interest  of  his  country 
with  as  sincere  a  zeal  as  any  other  mem 
ber.  I  claim  this  in  my  own  case ;  and 
while  I  shall  not,  for  any  purpose  of  de 
scription  or  convenient  arrangement  use 
terms  which  may  imply  any  disrespect 
to  other  men's  opinions,  much  less  any 
imputation  upon  other  men's  motives, 
it  is  my  duty  to  take  care  that  the  use  of 
such  terms  by  others  be  not,  against  the 
will  of  those  who  adopt  them,  made  to 
produce  a  false  impression. 

Indeed,  Sir,  it  is  a  little  astonishing, 
if  it  seemed  convenient  to  Mr.  Speaker, 
for  the  purposes  of  distinction,  to  make 
use  of  the  terms  "  American  policy  "  and 
"foreign  policy,"  that  he  should  not 
have  applied  them  in  a  manner  precisely 
the  reverse  of  that  in  which  he  has  in 
fact  used  them.  If  names  are  thought 
necessaiy,  it  would  be  well  enough,  one 
would  think,  that  the  name  should  be  in 
some  measure  descriptive  of  the  thing; 
and  since  Mr.  Speaker  denominates  the 
policy  which  he  recommends  "a  new 
policy  in  this  country  " ;  since  he  speaks 
of  the  present  measure  as  a  new  era  in 
our  legislation ;  since  he  professes  to  in- 

l  Mr.  Clay. 


vite  us  to  depart  from  our  accustomed 
course,  to  instruct  ourselves  by  the  wis 
dom  of  others,  and  to  adopt  the  policy 
of  the  most  distinguished  foreign  states, 
—  one  is  \  little  curious  to  know  with 
what  propriety  of  speech  this  imitation 
of  other  nations  is  denominated  an 
' '  American  policy, ' '  while,  on  the  contra 
ry,  a  preference  for  our  own  established 
system,  as  it  now  actually  exists  and 
always  has  existed,  is  called  a  "  foreign 
policy."  This  favorite  American  policy 
is  what  America  has  never  tried;  and 
this  odious  foreign  policy  is  what,  as  we 
are  told,  foreign  states  have  never  pur 
sued.  Sir,  that  is  the  truest  American 
policy  which  shall  most  usefully  employ 
American  capital  and  American  labor, 
and  best  sustain  the  whole  population. 
With  me  it  is  a  fundamental  axiom,  it 
is  interwoven  with  all  my  opinions,  that 
the  great  interests  of  the  country  are 
united  and  inseparable;  that  agricul 
ture,  commerce,  and  manufactures  will 
prosper  together  or  languish  together; 
and  that  all  legislation  is  dangerous 
which  proposes  to  benefit  one  of  these 
without  looking  to  consequences  which 
may  fall  on  the  others. 

Passing  from  this,  Sir,  I  am  bound  to 
say  that  Mr.  Speaker  began  his  able  and 
impressive  speech  at  the  proper  point  of 
inquiry,  —  I  mean  the  present  state  and 
condition  of  the  country,  —  although  I 
am  so  unfortunate,  or  rather  although  I 
am  so  happy,  as  to  differ  from  him  very 
widely  in  regard  to  that  condition.  I 
dissent  entirely  from  the  justice  of  that 
picture  of  distress  which  he  has  drawn. 
I  have  not  seen  the  reality,  and  know 
not  where  it  exists.  Within  my  obser 
vation,  there  is  no  cause  for  so  gloomy 
and  terrifying  a  representation.  In  re 
spect  to  the  New  England  States,  with 
the  condition  of  which  I  am  of  course 
best  acquainted,  the  present  appears  to 
me  a  period  of  very  general  prosperity. 
Not,  indeed,  a  time  for  sudden  acquisi 
tion  and  great  profits,  not  a  day  of 
extraordinary  activity  and  successful 
speculation.  There  is  no  doubt  a  con 
siderable  depression  of  prices,  and,  in 
some  degree,  a  stagnation  of  business. 
But  the  case  presented  by  Mr.  Speaker 


THE   TARIFF. 


79 


was  not  one  of  depression,  but  of  distress; 
of  universal,  pervading,  intense  distress, 
limited  to  no  class  and  to  no  place.  We 
are  represented  as  on  the  very  verge  and 
brink  of  national  ruin.  So  far  from  ac 
quiescing  in  these  opinions,  I  believe 
there  has  been  no  period  in  which  the 
general  prosperity  was  better  secured, 
or  rested  on  a  more  solid  foundation. 
As  applicable  to  the  Eastern  States,  I 
put  this  remark  to  their  representatives, 
and  ask  them  if  it  is  not  true.  When 
has  there  been  a  time  in  which  the 
means  of  living  have  been  more  accessi 
ble  and  more  abundant?  When  has  la 
bor  been  rewarded,  I  do  not  say  with  a 
larger,  but  with  a  more  certain  success? 
Profits,  indeed,  are  low;  in  some  pur 
suits  of  life,  which  it  is  not  proposed  to 
benefit,  but  to  burden,  by  this  bill,  very- 
low.  But  still  I  am  unacquainted  with 
any  proofs  of  extraordinary  distress. 
What,  indeed,  are  the  general  indica 
tions  of  the  state  of  the  country?  There 
is  no  famine  nor  pestilence  in  the  land, 
nor  war,  nor  desolation.  There  is  no 
writhing  under  the  burden  of  taxation. 
The  means  of  subsistence  are  abundant ; 
and  at  the  very  moment  when  the  mis 
erable  condition  of  the  country  is  as 
serted,  it  is  admitted  that  the  wages  of 
labor  are  high  in  comparison  with  those 
of  any  other  country.  A  country,  then, 
enjoying  a  profound  peace,  perfect  civil 
liberty,  with  the  means  of  subsistence 
cheap  and  abundant,  with  the  reward  of 
labor  sure,  and  its  wages  higher  than 
anywhere  else,  cannot  be  represented  as 
in  gloom,  melancholy,  and  distress,  but 
by  the  effort  of  extraordinary  powers  of 
tragedy. 

Even  if,  in  judging  of  this  question, 
we  were  to  regard  only  those  proofs  to 
which  we  have  been  referred,  we  shall 
probably  come  to  a  conclusion  somewhat 
different  from  that  which  has  been 
drawn.  Our  exports,  for  example,  al 
though  certainly  less  than  in  some  years, 
were  not,  last  year,  so  much  below  an 
average  formed  upon  the  exports  of  a 
series  of  years,  and  putting  those  ex 
ports  at  a  fixed  value,  as  might  be  sup 
posed.  The  value  of  the  exports  of 
agricultural  products,  of  animals,  of  the 


products  of  the  forest  and  of  the  sea, 
together  with  gunpowder,  spirits,  and 
sundry  unenumerated  articles,  amounted 
in  the  several  years  to  the  following 
sums,  viz. :  — 

In  1790, $27,716,152 

1804, 33,842,316 

1807, 38,465,854 

Coming  up  now  to  our  own  times, 
and  taking  the  exports  of  the  years  1821, 
1822,  and  1823,  of  the  same  articles  and 
products,  at  the  same  prices,  they  stand 
thus:  — 

In  1821, $45,643,175 

1822, 48,782,295 

1823, 55,863,491 

Mr.  Speaker  has  taken  the  very  ex 
traordinary  year  of  1803,  and,  adding  to 
the  exportation  of  that  year  what  he 
thinks  ought  to  have  been  a  just  aug 
mentation,  in  proportion  to  the  increase 
of  our  population,  he  swells  the  result 
to  a  magnitude,  which,  when  compared 
with  our  actual  exports,  would  exhibit 
a  great  deficiency.  But  is  there  any 
justice  in  this  mode  of  calculation?  In 
the  first  place,  as  before  observed,  the 
year  1803  was  a  year  of  extraordinary 
exportation.  By  reference  to  the  ac 
counts,  that  of  the  article  of  flour,  for 
example,  there  was  an  export  that  year 
of  thirteen  hundred  thousand  barrels; 
but  the  very  next  year  it  fell  to  eight 
hundred  thousand,  and  the  next  year  to 
seven  hundred  thousand.  In  the  next 
place,  there  never  was  any  reason  to 
expect  that  the  increase  of  our  exports 
of  agricultural  products  would  keep 
pace  with  the  increase  of  our  popula 
tion.  That  would  be  against  all  experi 
ence.  It  is,  indeed,  most  desirable,  that 
there  should  be  an  augmented  demand 
for  the  products  of  agriculture ;  but, 
nevertheless,  the  official  returns  of  our 
exports  do  not  show  that  absolute  want 
of  all  foreign  market  which  has  been  so 
strongly  stated. 

But  there  are  other  means  by  which 
to  judge  of  the  general  condition  of  the 
people.  The  quantity  of  the  means  of 
subsistence  consumed,  or,  to  make  use 
of  a  phraseology  better  suited  to  the 


80 


THE   TARIFF. 


condition  of  our  own  people,  the  quan 
tity  of  the  comforts  of  life  enjoyed, 
is  one  of  those  means.  It  so  hap 
pens,  indeed,  that  it  is  not  so  easy  in 
this  country  as  elsewhere  to  ascertain 
facts  of  this  sort  with  accuracy.  Where 
most  of  the  articles  of  subsistence  and 
most  of  the  comforts  of  life  are  taxed, 
there  is,  of  course,  great  facility  in 
ascertaining,  from  official  statements, 
the  amount  of  consumption.  But  in 
this  country,  most  fortunately,  the  gov 
ernment  neither  knows,  nor  is  concerned 
to  know,  the  annual  consumption;  and 
estimates  can  only  be  formed  in  another 
mode,  and  in  reference  only  to  a  few 
articles.  Of  these  articles,  tea  is  one. 
It  is  not  quite  a  luxury,  and  yet  is  some 
thing  above  the  absolute  necessaries  of 
life.  Its  consumption,  therefore,  will 
be  diminished  in  times  of  adversity,  and 
augmented  in  times  of  prosperity.  By 
deducting  the  annual  export  from  the 
annual  import,  and  taking  a  number  of 
years  together,  we  may  arrive  at  a  prob 
able  estimate  of  consumption.  The  aver 
age  of  eleven  years,  from  1790  to  1800, 
inclusive,  will  be  found  to  be  two  mil 
lions  and  a  half  of  pounds.  From  1801 
to  1812,  inclusive,  the  average  was  three 
millions  seven  hundred  thousand;  and 
the  average  of  the  last  three  years,  to 
wit,  1821,  1822,  and  1823,  was  five 
millions  and  a  half.  Having  made  a 
just  allowance  for  the  increase  of  our 
numbers,  we  shall  still  find,  I  think, 
from  these  statements,  that  there  is  no 
distress  which  has  limited  our  means  of 
subsistence  and  enjoyment. 

In  forming  an  opinion  of  the  degree 
of  general  prosperity,  we  may  regard, 
likewise,  the  progress  of  internal  im 
provements,  the  investment  of  capital 
in  roads,  bridges,  and  canals.  All  these 
prove  a  balance  of  income  over  expendi 
ture  ;  they  afford  evidence  that  there  is 
a  surplus  of  profits,  which  the  present 
generation  is  usefully  vesting  for  the 
benefit  of  the  next.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
that,  in  this  particular,  the  progress  of 
the  country  is  steady  and  rapid. 

We  may  look,  too,  to  the  sums  ex 
pended  for  education.  Are  our  colleges 
deserted?  Do  fathers  find  themselves 


less  able  than  usual  to  educate  their 
children?  It  will  be  found,  I  imagine, 
that  the  amount  paid  for  the  purpose  of 
education  is  constantly  increasing,  and 
that  the  schools  and  colleges  were  never 
more  full  than  at  the  present  moment.  I 
may  add,  that  the  endowment  of  public 
charities,  the  contributions  to  objects  of 
general  benevolence,  whether  foreign  or 
domestic,  the  munificence  of  individuals 
towards  whatever  promises  to  benefit 
the  community,  are  all  so  many  proofs 
of  national  prosperity.  And,  finally, 
there  is  no  defalcation  of  revenue,  no 
pressure  of  taxation. 

The  general  result,  therefore,  of  a  fair 
examination  of  the  present  condition  of 
things,  seems  to  me  to  be,  that  there  is 
a  considerable  depression  of  prices,  and 
curtailment  of  profit;  and  in  some  parts 
of  the  country,  it  must  be  admitted, 
there  is  a  great  degree  of  pecuniary 
embarrassment,  arising  from  the  diffi 
culty  of  paying  debts  which  were  con 
tracted  when  prices  were  high.  With 
these  qualifications,  the  general  state  of 
the  country  may  be  said  to  be  prosper 
ous  ;  and  these  are  not  sufficient  to  give 
to  the  whole  face  of  affairs  any  appear 
ance  of  general  distress. 

Supposing  the  evil,  then,  to  be  a  de 
pression  of  prices,  and  a  partial  pecuni 
ary  pressure,  the  next  inquiry  is  into 
the  causes  of  that  evil;  and  it  appears 
to  me  that  there  are  several ;  and  in  this 
respect,  I  think,  too  much  has  been  im 
puted  by  Mr.  Speaker  to  the  single  cause 
of  the  diminution  of  exports.  Con 
nected,  as  we  are,  with  all  the  commer 
cial  nations  of  the  world,  and  having 
observed  great  changes  to  take  place 
elsewhere,  we  should  consider  whether 
the  causes  of  those  changes  have  not 
reached  us,  and  whether  we  are  not 
suffering  by  the  operation  of  them,  in 
common  with  others.  Undoubtedly, 
there  has  been  a  great  fall  in  the  price 
of  all  commodities  throughout  the  com 
mercial  world,  in  consequence  of  the 
restoration  of  a  state  of  peace.  When 
the  Allies  entered  France  in  1814,  prices 
rose  astonishingly  fast,  and  very  high. 
Colonial  produce,  for  instance,  in  the 
ports  of  this  country,  as  well  as  else- 


THE   TARIFF. 


81 


where,  sprung  up  suddenly  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest  extreme.  A  new 
and  vast  demand  was  created  for  the 
commodities  of  trade.  These  were  the 
natural  consequences  of  the  great  politi 
cal  changes  which  then  took  place  in 
Europe. 

We  are  to  consider,  too,  that  our  own 
war  created  new  demand,  and  that  a 
government  expenditure  of  twenty-five 
or  thirty  million  dollars  a  year  had  the 
usual  eifect  of  enhancing  prices.  We 
are  obliged  to  add,  that  the  paper  issues 
of  our  banks  carried  the  same  effect 
still  further.  A  depreciated  currency 
existed  in  a  great  part  of  the  country ; 
depreciated  to  such  an  extent,  that,  at 
one  time,  exchange  between  the  centre 
and  the  North  was  as  high  as  twenty 
per  cent.  The  Bank  of  the  United 
States  was  instituted  to  correct  this 
evil;  but,  for  causes  which  it  is  not 
necessary  now  to  enumerate,  it  did  not 
for  some  years  bring  back  the  currency 
of  the  country  to  a  sound  state.  This 
depreciation  of  the  circulating  currency 
was  so  much,  of  course,  added  to  the 
nominal  prices  of  commodities,  and 
these  prices,  thus  unnaturally  high, 
seemed,  to  those  who  looked  only  at 
the  appearance,  to  indicate  great  pros 
perity.  But  such  prosperity  is  more 
specious  than  real.  It  would  have  been 
bette"r,  probably,  as  the  shock  would 
have  been  less,  if  prices  had  fallen 
sooner.  At  length,  however,  they  fell; 
and  as  there  is  little  doubt  that  certain 
events  in  Europe  had  an  influence  in 
determining  the  time  at  which  this  fall 
took  place,  I  will  advert  shortly  to  some 
of  the  principal  of  those  events. 

In  May,  1819,  the  British  House  of 
Commons  decided,  by  a  unanimous  vote, 
that  the  resumption  of  cash  payments 
by  the  Bank  of  England  should  not 
be  deferred  beyond  the  ensuing  Febru 
ary.  The  restriction  had  been  contin 
ued  from  time  to  time,  and  from  year 
to  year,  Parliament  always  professing 
to  look  to  the  restoration  of  a  specie 
currency  whenever  it  should  be  found 
practicable.  Having  been,  in  July,  1818, 
continued  to  July,  1819,  it  was  under 
stood  that,  in  the  interim,  the  impor- 


tant  question  of  the  time  at  which  cash 
payments  should  be  resumed  should  be 
finally  settled.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
year  1818,  the  circulation  of  the  bank 
had  been  greatly  reduced,  and  a  severe 
scarcity  of  money  was  felt  in  the  Lon 
don  market.  Such  was  the  state  of 
things  in  England.  On  the  Continent, 
other  important  events  took  place.  The 
French  Indemnity  Loan  had  been  ne 
gotiated  in  the  summer  of  1818,  and  the 
proportion  of  it  belonging  to  Austpia, 
Russia,  and  Prussia  had  been  sold.  This 
created  an  unusual  demand  for  gold  and 
silver  in  those  countries.  It  has  been 
stated,  that  the  amount  of  the  precious 
metals  transmitted  to  Austria  and  Rus 
sia  in  that  year  was  at  least  twenty  mil 
lions  sterling.  Other  large  sums  were 
sent  to  Prussia  and  to  Denmark.  The 
eifect  of  this  sudden  drain  of  specie, 
felt  first  at  Paris,  was  communicated 
to  Amsterdam  and  Hamburg,  and  all 
other  commercial  places  in  the  North 
of  Europe. 

The  paper  system  of  England  had  cer 
tainly  communicated  an  artificial  value 
to  property.  It  had  encouraged  specu 
lation,  and  excited  over-trading.  When 
the  shock  therefore  came,  and  this  vio 
lent  pressure  for  money  acted  at  the 
same  moment  on  the  Continent  and  in 
England,  inflated  and  unnatural  prices 
could  be  kept  up  no  longer.  A  reduc 
tion  took  place,  which  has  been  esti 
mated  to  have  been  at  least  equal  to  a 
fall  of  thirty,  if  not  forty  per  cent.  The 
depression  was  universal ;  and  the  change 
was  felt  in  the  United  States  severely, 
though  not  equally  so  in  every  part. 
There  are  those,  I  am  aware,  who  main 
tain  that  the  events  to  which  I  have  al 
luded  did  not  cause  the  great  fall  of 
prices,  but  that  that  fall  was  natural  and 
inevitable,  from  the  previously  existing 
state  of  things,  the  abundance  of  com 
modities,  and  the  want  of  demand.  But 
that  would  only  prove  that  the  effect 
was  produced  in  another  way,  rather 
than  by  another  cause.  If  these  great 
and  sudden  calls  for  money  did  not  re 
duce  prices,  but  prices  fell,  as  of  them 
selves,  to  their  natural  state,  still  the  re 
sult  is  the  same;  for  we  perceive  that, 


82 


THE   TARIFF. 


after  these  new  calls  for  money,  prices 
could  not  be  kept  longer  at  their  un 
natural  height. 

About  the  time  of  these  foreign  events, 
our  own  bank  system  underwent  a 
change  ;  and  all  these  causes,  in  my 
view  of  the  subject,  concurred  to  pro 
duce  the  great  shock  which  took  place 
in  our  commercial  cities,  and  in  many 
parts  of  the  country.  The  year  1819 
was  a  year  of  numerous  failures,  and 
very  considerable  distress,  and  would 
have  furnished  far  better  grounds  than 
exist  at  present  for  that  gloomy  repre 
sentation  of  our  condition  which  has 
been  presented.  Mr.  Speaker  has  al 
luded  to  the  strong  inclination  which 
exists,  or  has  existed,  in  various  parts 
of  the  country,  to  issue  paper  money, 
as  a  proof  of  great  existing  difficulties. 
I  regard  it  rather  as  a  very  productive 
cause  of  those  difficulties ;  and  the  com 
mittee  will  not  fail  to  observe,  that  there 
is,  at  this  moment,  much  the  loudest 
complaint  of  distress  precisely  where 
there  has  been  the  greatest  attempt  to 
relieve  it  by  systems  of  paper  credit. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  content,  pros 
perity,  and  happiness  are  most  observa 
ble  in  those  parts  of  the  country  where 
there  has  been  the  least  endeavor  to  ad 
minister  relief  by  law.  In  truth,  noth 
ing  is  so  baneful,  so  utterly  ruinous  to 
all  true  industry,  as  interfering  with  the 
legal  value  of  money,  or  attempting  to 
raise  artificial  standards  to  supply  its 
place.  Such  remedies  suit  well  the  spirit 
of  extravagant  speculation,  but  they  sap 
the  very  foundation  of  all  honest  acqui 
sition.  By  weakening  the  security  of 
property,  they  take  away  all  motive  for 
exertion.  Their  eifect  is  to  transfer 
property.  Whenever  a  debt  is  allowed 
to  be  paid  by  any  thing  less  valuable 
than  the  legal  currency  in  respect  to 
which  it  was  contracted,  the  difference 
between  the  value  of  the  paper  given  in 
payment  and  the  legal  currency  is  pre 
cisely  so  much  property  taken  from  one 
man  and  given  to  another,  by  legislative 
enactment. 

When  we  talk,  therefore,  of  protect 
ing  industry,  let  us  remember  that  the 
first  measure  for  that  end  is  to  secure  it 


in  its  earnings;  to  assure  it  that  it  shall 
receive  its  own.  Before  we  invent  new 
modes  of  raising  prices,  let  us  take  care 
that  existing  prices  are  not  rendered 
wholly  unavailable,  by  making  them 
capable  of  being  paid  in  depreciated 
paper.  I  regard,  Sir,  this  issue  of  ir 
redeemable  paper  as  the  most  prominent 
and  deplorable  cause  of  whatever  press 
ure  still  exists  in  the  country ;  and, 
further,  I  would  put  the  question  to  the 
members  of  this  committee,  whether  it 
is  riot  from  that  part  of  the  people  who 
have  tried  this  paper  system,  and  tried 
it  to  their  cost,  that  this  bill  receives 
the  most  earnest  support?  And  I  can 
not  forbear  to  ask,  further,  whether  this 
support  does  not  proceed  rather  from  a 
general  feeling  of  uneasiness  under  the 
present  condition  of  things,  than  from 
the  clear  perception  of  any  benefit  which 
the  measure  itself  can  confer  ?  Is  not 
all  expectation  of  advantage  centred  in 
a  sort  of  vague  hope,  that  change  may 
produce  relief  ?  Debt  certainly  presses 
hardest  where  prices  have  been  longest 
kept  up  by  artificial  means.  They  find 
the  shock  lightest  who  take  it  soonest ; 
and  I  fully  believe  that,  if  those  parts  of 
the  country  which  now  suffer  most  had 
not  augmented  the  force  of  the  blow  by 
deferring  it,  they  would  have  now  been 
in  a  much  better  condition  than  they 
are.  We  may  assure  ourselves,  once  for 
all,  Sir,  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  payment  of  debts  by  legislation.  We 
may  abolish  debts  indeed;  we  may  trans 
fer  property  by  visionary  and  violent 
laws.  But  we  deceive  both  ourselves 
and  our  constituents,  if  we  flatter  either 
ourselves  or  them  with  the  hope  that 
there  is  any  relief  against  whatever 
pressure  exists,  but  in  economy  and  in 
dustry.  The  depression  of  prices  and 
the  stagnation  of  business  have  been 
in  truth  the  necessary  result  of  cir 
cumstances.  No  government  could  pre 
vent  them,  and  no  government  can  al 
together  relieve  the  people  from  their 
effect.  We  have  enjoyed  a  day  of  ex 
traordinary  prosperity;  we  had  been 
neutral  while  the  world  was  at  war,  and 
had  found  a  great  demand  for  our  prod 
ucts,  our  navigation,  and  our  labor.  We 


THE   TARIFF. 


83 


had  no  right  to  expect  that  that  state  of 
things  would  continue  always.  With  the 
return  of  peace,  foreign  nations  would 
struggle  for  themselves,  and  enter  into 
competition  with  us  in  the  great  objects 
of  pursuit. 

Now,  Sir.  what  is  the  remedy  for 
existing  evils  ?  What  is  the  course  of 
policy  suited  to  our  actual  condition? 
Certainly  it  is  not  our  wisdom  to  adopt 
any  system  that  may  be  offered  to  us, 
without  examination,  and  in  the  blind 
hope  that  whatever  changes  our  con 
dition  may  improve  it.  It  is  better  that 
we  should 

"bear  those  ills  we  have, 
Than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of." 

We  are  bound  to  see  that  there  is  a  fit 
ness  and  an  aptitude  in  whatever  meas 
ures  may  be  recommended  to  relieve  the 
evils  that  afflict  us ;  and  before  we  adopt 
a  system  that  professes  to  make  great 
alterations,  it  is  our  duty  to  look  care 
fully  to  each  leading  interest  of  the  com 
munity,  and  see  how  it  may  probably  be 
affected  by  our  proposed  legislation. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  what  is  the 
condition  of  our  commerce?  Here  we 
must  clearly  perceive,  that  it  is  not  en 
joying  that  rich  harvest  which  fell  to  its 
fortune  during  the  continuance  of  the 
European  wars.  It  has  been  greatly 
depressed,  and  limited  to  small  profits. 
Still,  it  is  elastic  and  active,  and  seems 
capable  of  recovering  itself  in  some 
measure  from  its  depression.  The  ship 
ping  interest,  also,  has  suffered  severely, 
still  more  severely,  probably,  than  com 
merce.  If  any  thing  should  strike  us 
with  astonishment,  it  is  that  the  navi 
gation  of  the  United  States  should  be 
able  to  sustain  itself.  Without  any  gov 
ernment  protection  whatever,  it  goes 
abroad  to  challenge  competition  with 
the  whole  world;  and,  in  spite  of  all  ob 
stacles,  it  has  yet  been  able  to  maintain 
eight  hundred  thousand  tons  in  the  em 
ployment  of  foreign  trade.  How,  Sir, 
do  the  ship-owners  and  navigators  ac 
complish  this  ?  How  is  it  that  they  are 
able  to  meet,  and  in  some  measure  over 
come,  universal  competition  ?  It  is  not, 
Sir,  by  protection  and  bounties ;  but  by 


unwearied  exertion,  by  extreme  econ 
omy,  by  unshaken  perseverance,  by  that 
manly  and  resolute  spirit  which  relies, 
on  itself  to  protect  itself.  These  causes 
alone  enable  American  ships  still  to  keep 
their  element,  and  show  the  flag  of  their 
country  in  distant  seas.  The  rates  of 
insurance  may  teach  us  how  thoroughly 
our  ships  are  built,  and  how  skilfully 
and  safely  they  are  navigated.  Risks 
are  taken,  as  I  learn,  from  the  United 
States  to  Liverpool,  at  one  per  cent; 
and  from  the  United  States  to  Canton 
and  back,  as  low  as  three  per  cent.  But 
when  we  look  to  the  low  rate  of  freight, 
and  when  we  consider,  also,  that  the 
articles  entering  into  the  composition  of 
a  ship,  with  the  exception  of  wood,  are 
dearer  here  than  in  other  countries,  we 
cannot  but  be  utterly  surprised  that  the 
shipping  interest  has  been  able  to  sus 
tain  itself  at  all.  I  need  not  say  that  the 
navigation  of  the  country  is  essential  to 
its  honor  and  its  defence.  Yet,  instead 
of  proposing  benefits  for  it  in  this  hour 
of  its  depression,  we  threaten  by  this 
measure  to  lay  upon  it  new  and  heavy 
burdens.  In  the  discussion,  the  other 
day,  of  that  provision  of  the  bill  which 
proposes  to  tax  tallo\v  for  the  benefit  of 
the  oil-merchants  and  whalemen,  we  had 
the  pleasure  of  hearing  eloquent  eulo- 
giums  upon  that  portion  of  our  shipping 
employed  in  the  whale-fishery,  and  strong 
statements  of  its  importance  to  the  pub 
lic  interest.  But  the  same  bill  proposes 
a  severe  tax  upon  that  interest,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  iron-manufacturer  and  the 
hemp-grower.  So  that  the  tallow-chand 
lers  and  soapboilers  are  sacrificed  to  the 
oil-merchants,  in  order  that  these  again 
may  contribute  to  the  manufacturers  of 
iron  and  the  growers  of  hemp. 

If  such  be  the  state  of  our  commerce 
and  navigation,  what  is  the  condition  of 
our  home  manufactures?  How  are  they 
amidst  the  general  depression?  Do  they 
need  further  protection?  and  if  any, 
how  much?  On  all  these  points,  we 
have  had  much  general  statement,  but 
little  precise  information.  In  the  very 
elaborate  speech  of  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
not  supplied  with  satisfactory  grounds 
of  judging  with  respect  to  these  various 


84 


THE   TARIFF. 


particulars.  Who  can  tell,  from  any 
thing  yet  before  the  committee,  whether 
the  proposed  duty  be  too  high  or  too 
low  on  any  one  article?  Gentlemen  tell 
us,  that  they  are  in  favor  of  domestic 
industry ;  so  am  I.  They  would  give  it 
protection;  so  would  I.  But  then  all 
domestic  industry  is  not  conlined  to 
manufactures.  The  employments  of 
agriculture,  commerce,  and  navigation 
are  all  branches  of  the  same  domestic 
industry;  they  all  furnish  employment 
for  American  capital  and  American 
labor.  And  when  the  question  is, 
whether  new  duties  shall  be  laid,  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  further  encourage 
ment  to  particular  manufactures,  every 
reasonable  man  must  ask  himself,  both 
whether  the  proposed  new  encourage 
ment  be  necessary,  and  whether  it  can 
be  given  without  injustice  to  other 
branches  of  industry. 

It  is  desirable  to  know,  also,  some 
what  more  distinctly,  how  the  proposed 
means  will  produce  the  intended  effect. 
One  great  object  proposed,  for  example, 
is  the  increase  of  the  home  market  for 
the  consumption  of  agricultural  prod 
ucts.  This  certainly  is  much  to  be 
desired ;  but  what  provisions  of  the  bill 
are  expected  wholly  or  principally  to 
produce  this,  is  not  stated.  I  would  not 
deny  that  some  increase  of  the  home 
market  may  follow,  from  the  adoption 
of  this  bill,  but  all  its  provisions  have 
not  an  equal  tendency  to  produce  this 
effect.  Those  manufactures  which  em 
ploy  most  labor,  create,  of  course,  most 
demand  for  articles  of  consumption; 
and  those  create  least  in  the  production 
of  which  capital  and  skill  enter  as  the 
chief  ingredients  of  cost.  I  cannot,  Sir, 
take  this  bill  merely  because  a  com 
mittee  has  recommended  it.  I  cannot 
espouse  a  side,  and  fight  under  a  flag. 
I  wholly  repel  the  idea  that  we  must 
take  this  law,  or  pass  no  law  on  the 
subject.  What  should  hinder  us  from 
exercising  our  own  judgments  upon 
these  provisions,  singly  and  severally? 
Who  has  the  power  to  place  us,  or  why 
should  we  place  ourselves,  in  a  condition 
where  we  cannot  give  to  every  measure, 
that  is  distinct  and  separate  in  itself, 


a  separate  and  distinct  consideration? 
Sir,  I  presume  no  member  of  the  com 
mittee  will  withhold  his  assent  from 
what  he  thinks  right,  until  others  will 
yield  their  assent  to  what  they  think 
wrong.  There  are  many  things  in  this 
bill  acceptable,  probably,  to  the  general 
sense  of  the  House.  Why  should  not 
these  provisions  be  passed  into  a  law, 
and  others  left  to  be  decided  upon  their 
own  merits,  as  a  majority  of  the  House 
shall  see  fit?  To  some  of  these  pro 
visions  I  am  myself  decidedly  favora 
ble;  to  others  I  have  great  objections; 
and  I  should  have  been  very  glad  of  an 
opportunity  of  giving  my  own  vote  dis 
tinctly  on  propositions  which  are,  in 
their  own  nature,  essentially  and  sub 
stantially  distinct  from  one  another. 

But,  Sir,  before  expressing  my  own 
opinion  upon  the  several  provisions  of 
this  bill,  I  will  advert  for  a  moment  to 
some  other  general  topics.  We  have 
heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England, 
and  her  example  has  been  repeatedly 
urged  upon  us,  as  proving,  not  only  the 
expediency  of  encouragement  and  pro 
tection,  but  of  exclusion  and  direct 
prohibition  also.  I  took  occasion  the 
other  day  to  remark,  that  more  liberal 
notions  were  becoming  prevalent  on  this 
subject;  that  the  policy  of  restraints  and 
prohibitions  was  getting  out  of  repute, 
as  the  true  nature  of  commerce  became 
better  understood;  and  that,  among 
public  men,  those  most  distinguished 
were  most  decided  in  their  reprobation 
of  the  broad  principle  of  exclusion  and 
prohibition.  Upon  the  truth  of  this 
representation,  as  matter  of  fact,  I  sup- 
posed  there  could  not  be  two  opinions 
among  those  who  had  observed  the 
progress  of  political  sentiment  in  other 
countries,  and  were  acquainted  with  its 
present  state.  In  this  respect,  however, 
it  would  seem  that  I  was  greatly  mis 
taken.  We  have  heard  it  again  and 
again  declared,  that  the  English  govern 
ment  still  adheres,  with  immovable  firm 
ness',  to  its  old  doctrines  of  prohibition ; 
that  although  journalists,  theorists,  and 
scientific  writers  advance  other  doc 
trines,  yet  the  practical  men,  the  legis 
lators,  the  government  of  the  country, 


THE   TARIFF. 


85 


are  too  wise  to  follow  them.  It  has 
even  been  most  sagaciously  hinted,  that 
the  promulgation  of  liberal  opinions  on 
these  subjects  is  intended  only  to  delude 
other  governments,  to  cajole  them  into 
the  folly  of  liberal  ideas,  while  England 
retains  to  herself  all  the  benefits  of  the 
admirable  old  system  of  prohibition. 
We  have  heard  from  Mr.  Speaker  a 
warm  commendation  of  the  complex 
mechanism  of  this  system.  The  British 
empire,  it  is  said,  is,  in  the  first  place, 
to  be  protected  against  the  rest  of  the 
world;  then  the  British  Isles  against 
the  colonies ;  next,  the  isles  respectively 
against  each  other,  England  herself,  as 
the  heart  of  the  empire,  being  protected 
most  of  all,  and  against  all. 

Truly,  Sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  Mr. 
Speaker's  imagination  has  seen  system, 
and  order,  and  beauty,  in  that  which  is 
much  more  justly  considered  as  the 
result  of  ignorance,  partiality,  or  vio 
lence.  This  part  of  English  legislation 
has  resulted,  partly  from  considering 
Ireland  as  a  conquered  country,  partly 
from  the  want  of  a  complete  union,  even 
with  Scotland,  and  partly  from  the 
narrow  views  of  colonial  regulation, 
which  in  early  and  uninformed  periods 
influenced  the  European  states. 

Nothing,  I  imagine,  would  strike  the 
public  men  of  England  more  singularly, 
than  to  find  gentlemen  of  real  informa 
tion  and  much  weight  in  the  councils  of 
this  country  expressing  sentiments  like 
these,  in  regard  to  the  existing  state  of 
these  English  laws.  I  have  never  said, 
indeed,  that  prohibitory  laws  do  not 
exist  in  England ;  we  all  know  they  do ; 
but  the  question  is,  Does  she  oweu  her 
prosperity  and  greatne§sVx>  the*seilaws? 
I  venture  to  say,  that  such  is  not  the 
opinion  of  public  men  now  in  England, 
and  the  continuance  of  the  laws,  even 
without  any  alteration,  would  not  be 
evidence  that  their  opinion  is  different 
•from  what  I  have  represented  it;  be 
cause  the  laws  having  existed  long,  and 
great  interests  having  been  built  up  on 
the  faith  of  them,  they  cannot  now  be 
repealed  without  great  and  overwhelm 
ing  inconvenience.  Because  a  thing 
has  been  wrongly  done,  it  does  not 


therefore  follow  that  it  can  now  be 
undone;  and  this  is  the  reason,  as  I 
understand  it,  for  which  exclusion,  pro 
hibition,  and  monopoly  are  suffered  to 
remain  in  any  degree  in  the  English 
system;  and  for  the  same  reason,  it  will 
be  wise  in  us  to  take  our  measures,  on 
all  subjects  of  this  kind,  with  great 
caution.  We  may  not  be  able,  but  at 
the  hazard  of  much  injury  to  individuals, 
hereafter  to  retrace  our  steps.  And  yet, 
whatever  is  extravagant  or  unreasonable 
is  not  likely  to  endure.  There  may 
come  a  moment  of  strong  reaction ;  and 
if  no  moderation  be  shown  in  laying  on 
duties,  there  may  be  as  little  scruple  in 
taking  them  off. 

It  may  be  here  observed,  that  there  is 
a  broad  and  marked  distinction  between 
entire  prohibition  and  reasonable  encour 
agement.  It  is  one  thing,  by  duties  or 
taxes  on  foreign  articles,  to  awaken  a 
home  competition  in  the  production  of 
the  same  articles ;  it  is  another  thing  to 
remove  all  competition  by  a  total  ex 
clusion  of  the  foreign  article ;  and  it  is 
quite  another  thing  still,  by  total  pro 
hibition,  to  raise  'up  at  home  manufac 
tures  not  suited  to  the  climate,  the 
nature  of  the  country,  or  the  state  of 
the  population.  These  are  substantial 
distinctions,  and  although  it  may  not 
be  easy  in  every  case  to  determine 
which  of  them  applies  to  a  given  article, 
yet  the  distinctions  themselves  exist, 
and  in  most  cases  will  -  be  sufficiently 
clear  to  indicate  the  true  course  of 
policy;  and,  unless  I  have  greatly  mis 
taken  the  prevailing  sentiment  in  the 
councils  of  England,  it  grows  every 
day  more  and  more  favorable  to  the 
diminution  of  restrictions,  and  to  the 
wisdom  of  leaving  much  (I  do  not  say 
every  thing,  for  that  would  not  be  true) 
to  the  enterprise  and  the  discretion  of 
individuals.  I  should  certainly  not 
have  taken  up  the  time  of  the  committee 
to  state  at  any  length  the  opinions  of 
other  governments,  or  of  the  public  men 
of  other  countries,  upon  a  subject  like 
this;  but  an  occasional  remark  made 
by  me  the  other  day,  having  been  so 
directly  controverted,  especially  by  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  his  observations  yesterday, 


86 


THE   TARIFF. 


I  must  take  occasion  to  refer  to  some 
proofs  of  what  I  have  stated. 

What,  then,  is  the  state  of  English 
opinion?  Everybody  knows  that,  after 
the  termination  of  the  late  European 
war,  there  came  a  time  of  great  press 
ure  in  England.  Since  her  example  has 
been  quoted,  let  it  be  asked  in  what 
mode  her  government  sought  relief. 
Did  it  aim  to  maintain  artificial  and 
unnatural  prices  ?  Did  it  maintain  a 
swollen  and  extravagant  paper  circula 
tion?  Did  it  carry  further  the  laws  of 
prohibition  and  exclusion  ?  Did  it 
draw  closer  the  cords  of  colonial  re 
straint  ?  No,  Sir,  but  precisely  the 
reverse.  Instead  of  relying  on  legisla 
tive  contrivances  and  artificial  devices, 
it  trusted  to  the  enterprise  and  industry 
of  the  people,  which  it  sedulously  sought 
to  excite,  not  by  imposing  restraint,  but 
by  removing  it,  wherever  its  removal 
was  practicable.  In  May,  1820,  the  at 
tention  of  the  government  having  been 
much  turned  to  the  state  of  foreign 
trade,  a  distinguished  member J  of  the 
House  of  Peers  brought  forward  a  Par 
liamentary  motion  upon  that  subject, 
followed  by  an  ample  discussion  and  a 
full  statement  of  his  own  opinions.  In 
the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  observed, 
"  that  there  ought  to  be  no  prohibitory 
duties  as  such ;  for  that  it  was  evident, 
that,  where  a  manufacture  could  not  be 
can-led  on,  or  a  production  raised,  but 
under  the  protection  of  a  prohibitory 
duty,  that  manufacture,  or  that  prod 
uce,  could  not  be  brought  to  market 
but  at  a  loss.  In  his  opinion,  the  name 
of  strict  prohibition  might,  therefore, 
in  commerce,  be  got  rid  of  altogether  ; 
but  he  did  not  see  the  same  objection  to 
protecting  duties,  which,  while  they 
admitted  of  the  introduction  of  com 
modities  from  abroad  similar  to  those 
which  we  ourselves  manufactured, 
placed  them  so  much  on  a  level  as  to 
allow  a  competition  between  them." 
"No  axiom,"  he  added,  "was  more 
true  than  this:  that  it  was  by  growing 
what  the  territory  of  a  country  could 
grow  most  cheaply,  and  by  receiving 

1  Lord  Lansdowne. 


from  other  countries  what  it  could  not 
produce  except  at  too  great  an  expense, 
that  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness 
was  to  be  communicated  to  the  greatest 
extent  of  population." 

In  assenting  to  the  motion,  the  first 
minister2  of  the  crown  expressed  his 
own  opinion  of  the  great  advantage  re 
sulting  from  unrestricted  freedom  of 
trade.  "  Of  the  soundness  of  that  gen 
eral  principle,"  he  observed,  "  I  can 
entertain  no  doubt.  I  can  entertain  no 
doubt  of  what  would  have  been  the 
great  advantages  to  the  civilized  world, 
if  the  system  of  unrestricted  trade  had 
been  acted  upon  by  every  nation  from 
the  earliest  period  of  its  commercial  in 
tercourse  with  its  neighbors.  If  to 
those  advantages  there  could  have  been 
any  exceptions,  I  arn  persuaded  that 
they  would  have  been  but  few;  and  I 
am  also  persuaded  that  the  cases  to 
which  they  would  have  referred  would 
not  have  been,  in  themselves,  con 
nected  with  the  trade  and  commerce 
of  England.  But  we  are  now  in  a 
situation  in  which,  I  will  not  say  that 
a  reference  to  the  principle  of  un 
restricted  trade  can  be  of  no  use, 
because  such  a  reference  may  correct 
erroneous  reasoning,  but  in  which  it  is 
impossible  for  us,  or  for  any  country 
in  the  world  but  the  United  States  of 
America,  to  act  unreservedly  on  that 
principle.  The  commercial  regulations 
of  the  European  world  have  been  long 
established,  and  cannot  suddenly  be 
departed  from."  Having  supposed  a 
proposition  to  be  made  to  England  by  a 
foreign  state  for  free  commerce  and  in 
tercourse,  and  an  unrestricted  exchange 
of  agricultural  products  and  of  manu 
factures,  he  proceeds  to  observe:  "  It 
would  be  impossible  to  accede  to  such  a 
proposition.  AVe  have  risen  to  our  pres 
ent  greatness  under  a  different  system. 
Some  suppose  that  we  have  risen  in 
consequence  of  that  system;  others,  of 
whom  I  am  one,  believe  that  we  have  risen 
in  spite  of  that  system.  But,  whichever  of 
these  hypotheses  be  true,  certain  it  is 
that  we  have  risen  under  a  very  differ- 

2  Lord  Liverpool. 


THE   TARIFF. 


87 


ent  system  than  that  of  free  and  unre 
stricted  trade.  It  is  utterly  impossible, 
with  our  debt  and  taxation,  even  if  they 
were  but  half  their  existing  amount, 
that  we  can  suddenly  adopt  the  system 
of  free  trade." 

Lord  Ellenborough,  in  the  same  de 
bate,  said,  "  that  he  attributed  the  gen 
eral  distress  then  existing  in  Europe  to 
the  regulations  that  had  taken  place 
since  the  destruction  of  the  French 
power.  Most  of  the  states  on  the  Con 
tinent  had  surrounded  themselves  as 
with  walls  of  brass,  to  inhibit  inter 
course  with  other  states.  Intercourse 
was  prohibited,  even  in  districts  of  the 
same  state,  as  was  the  case  in  Austria 
and  Sardinia.  Thus,  though  the  taxes 
on  the  people  had  been  lightened,  the 
severity  of  their  condition  had  been  in 
creased.  He  believed  that  the  discon 
tent  which  pervaded  most  parts  of 
Europe,  and  especially  Germany,  was 
more  owing  to  commercial  restrictions 
than  to  any  theoretical  doctrines  on  gov 
ernment;  and  that  a  free  communica 
tion  among  them  would  do  more  to 
restore  tranquillity,  than  any  other  step 
that  could  be  adopted.  He  objected  to 
all  attempts  to  frustrate  the  benevolent 
intentions  of  Providence,  which  had 
given  to  various  countries  various  wants, 
in  order  to  bring  them  together.  He 
objected  to  it  as  anti-social;  he  objected 
to  it  as  making  commerce  the  means  of 
barbarizing  instead  of  enlightening  na 
tions.  The  state  of  the  trade  with 
France  was  most  disgraceful  to  both 
countries;  the  two  greatest  civilized  na 
tions  of  the  world,  placed  at  a  distance 
of  scarcely  twenty  miles  from  each 
other,  had  contrived,  by  their  artificial 
regulations,  to  reduce  their  commerce 
with  each  other  to  a  mere  nullity." 
Every  member  speaking  on  this  occa 
sion  agreed  in  the  general  sentiments 
favorable  to  unrestricted  intercourse, 
which  had  thus  been  advanced ;  one  of 
them  remarking,  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  debate,  that  "  the  principles  of  free 
trade,  which  he  was  happy  to  see  so 
fully  recognized,  were  of  the  utmost 
consequence;  for,  though,  in  the  pres 
ent  circumstances  of  the  country,  a  free 


trade  was  unattainable,  yet  their  task 
hereafter  was  to  approximate  to  it. 
Considering  the  prejudices  and  in 
terests  which  were  opposed  to  the  recog 
nition  of  that  principle,  it  was  no  small 
indication  of  the  firmness  and  liberal 
ity  of  government  to  have  so  fully  con 
ceded  it." 

Sir,  we  have  seen,  in  the  course  of 
this  discussion,  that  several  gentlemen 
have  expressed  their  high  admiration  of 
the  silk  manufacture  of  England.  Its 
commendation  was  begun,  I  think,  by 
the  honorable  member  from  Vermont, 
who  sits  near  me,  who  thinks  that  that 
alone  gives  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
benefits  produced  by  attention  to  manu 
factures,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  great  source 
of  wealth  to  the  nation,  and  has  amply 
repaid  all  the  cost  of  its  protection. 
Mr.  Speaker's  approbation  of  this  part 
of  the  English  example  was  still  warmer. 
Now,  Sir,  it  does  so  happen,  that  both 
these  gentlemen  differ  very  widely  on 
this  point  from  the  opinions  entertained 
in  England,  by  persons  of  the  first  rank, 
both  as  to  knowledge  and  power.  In 
the  debate  to  which  I  have  already 
referred,  the  proposer  of  the  motion 
urged  the  expediency  of  providing  for 
the  admission  of  the  silks  of  France 
into  England.  "  He  was  aware,"  he 
said,  "that  there  was  a  poor  and  in 
dustrious  body  of  manufacturers,  whose 
interests  must  suffer  by  such  an  ar 
rangement;  and  therefore  he  felt  that 
it  would  be  the  duty  of  Parliament  to 
provide  for  the  present  generation  by  a 
large  Parliamentary  grant.  It  was  con 
formable  to  every  principle  of  sound 
justice  to  do  so,  when  the  interests  of  a 
particular  class  were  sacrificed  to  the 
good  of  the  whole."  In  answer  to 
these  observations,  Lord  Liverpool  said 
that,  with  reference  to  several  branches 
of  manufactures,  time,  and  the  change 
of  circumstances,  had  rendered  the  sys 
tem  of  protecting  duties  merely  nom 
inal;  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  if  all  the 
protecting  laws  which  regarded  both  the 
woollen  and  cotton  manufactures  were 
to  be  repealed,  no  injurious  effects 
would  thereby  be  occasioned.  "  But," 
he  observes,  "  with  respect  to  silk,  that 


88 


THE   TARIFF. 


manufacture  in  this  kingdom  is  so  com 
pletely  artificial,  that  any  attempt  to 
introduce  the  principles  of  free  trade 
with  reference  to  it  might  put  an  end 
to  it  altogether.  I  allow  that  the  silk 
manufacture  is  not  natural  to  this  coun 
try.  /  ivish  we  had  never  had  a  silk 
manufactory.  I  allow  that  it  is  natural 
to  France;  I  allow  that  it  might  have 
been  better,  had  each  country  adhered 
exclusively  to  that  manufacture  in 
which  each  is  superior;  and  had  the 
silks  of  France  been  exchanged  for 
British  cottons.  But  I  must  look  at 
things  as  they  are;  and  when  I  consider 
the  extent  of  capital,  and  the  immense 
population,  consisting,  I  believe,  of 
about  fifty  thousand  persons,  engaged 
in  our  silk  manufacture,  I  can  only  say, 
that  one  of  the  few  points  in  which  1 
totally  disagree  with  the  proposer  of  the 
motion  is  the  expediency,  under  exist 
ing  circumstances,  of  holding  out  any 
idea  that  it  would  be  possible  to  re 
linquish  the  silk  manufacture,  and  to 
provide  for  those  who  live  by  it,  by 
Parliamentary  enactment.  Whatever 
objections  there  may  be  to  the  continu 
ance  of  the  protecting  system,  I  repeat, 
that  it  is  impossible  altogether  to  relin 
quish  it.  I  may  regret  that  the  system 
was  ever  commenced;  but  as  I  cannot 
recall  that  act,  I  must  submit  to  the  in 
convenience  by  which  it  is  attended, 
rather  than  expose  the  country  to  evils 
of  greater  magnitude."  Let  it  be  re 
membered,  Sir,  that  these  are  not  the 
sentiments  of  a  theorist,  nor  the  fancies 
of  speculation ;  but  the  operative  opin 
ions  of  the  first  minister  of  England, 
acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  ablest 
and  most  practical  statesmen  of  his 
country. 

Gentlemen  could  have  hardly  been 
more  unfortunate  than  in  the  selection 
of  the  silk  manufacture  in  England  as 
an  example  of  the  beneficial  effects  of 
that  system  which  they  would  recom 
mend.  It  is,  in  the  language  which  I 
have  quoted,  completely  artificial.  It 
has  been  sustained  by  I  know  not  how 
many  laws,  breaking  in  upon  the  plain 
est  principles  of  general  expediency. 
At  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  the 


manufacturers  petitioned  for  the  repeal 
of  three  or  four  of  these  statutes,  com 
plaining  of  the  vexatious  restrictions 
which  they  impose  on  the  wages  of 
labor;  setting  forth,  that  a  great  variety 
of  orders  has  from  time  to  time  been 
issued  by  magistrates  under  the  au 
thority  of  these  laws,  interfering  in  an 
oppressive  manner  with  the  minutest 
details  of  the  manufacture,  —  such  as 
limiting  the  number  of  threads  to  an 
inch,  restricting  the  widths  of  many 
sorts  of  work,  and  determining  the 
quantity  of  labor  not  to  be  exceeded 
without  extra  wages ;  that  by  the  oper 
ation  of  these  laws,  the  rate  of  wages, 
instead  of  being  left  to  the  recognized 
principles  of  regulation,  has  been  arbi 
trarily  fixed  by  persons  whose  ignorance 
renders  them  incompetent  to  a  just  de 
cision;  that  masters  are  compelled  by 
law  to  pay  an  equal  price  for  all  work, 
whether  well  or  ill  performed ;  and  that 
they  are  wholly  prevented  from  using 
improved  machinery,  it  being  ordered, 
that  work,  in  the  weaving  of  which 
machinery  is  employed,  shall  be  paid 
precisely  at  the  same  rate  as  if  done  by 
hand;  that  these  acts  have  frequently 
given  rise  to  the  most  vexatious  regula 
tions,  the  unintentional  breach  of  which 
has  subjected  manufacturers  to  ruinous 
penalties;  and  that  the  introduction  of 
all  machinery  being  prevented,  by  which 
labor  might  be  cheapened,  and  the  manu 
facturers  being  compelled  to  pay  at  a 
fixed  price,  under  all  circumstances, 
they  are  unable  to  afford  employment 
to  their  workmen,  in  times  of  stagnation 
of  trade,  and  are  compelled  to  stop  their 
looms.  And  finally,  they  complain  that, 
notwithstanding  these  grievances  under 
which  they  labor,  while  carrying  on  their 
manufacture  in  London,  the  law  still 
prohibits  them,  while  they  continue  to 
reside  there,  from  employing  any  portion 
of  their  capital  in  the  same  business  in 
any  other  part  of  the  kingdom,  where  it 
might  be  more  beneficially  conducted. 
Now,  Sir,  absurd  as  these  laws  must 
appear  to  be  to  every  man,  the  attempt 
to  repeal  them  did  not,  as  far  as  I  recol 
lect,  altogether  succeed.  The  weavers 
were  too  numerous,  their  interests  too 


THE   TARIFF. 


89 


great,  or  their  prejudices  too  strong; 
and  this  notable  instance  of  protection 
and  monopoly  still  exists,  to  be  lamented 
in  England  with  as  much  sincerity  as  it 
seems  to  be  admired  here. 

In  order  further  to  show  the  prevail 
ing  sentiment  of  the  English  govern 
ment,  I  would  refer  to  a  report  of  a 
select  committee  of  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the 
Vice-President  of  the  Board  of  Trade 
(Mr.  Wallace),  in  July,  1820.  ''The 
time,"  say  that  committee,  "  when 
monopolies  could  be  successfully  sup 
ported,  or  would  be  patiently  endured, 
either  in  respect  to  subjects  against  sub 
jects,  or  particular  countries  against  the 
rest  of  the  world,  seems  to  have  passed 
away.  Commerce,  to  continue  undis 
turbed  and  secure,  must  be,  as  it  was 
intended  to  be,  a  source  of  reciprocal 
amity  between  nations,  and  an  inter 
change  of  productions  to  promote  the 
industry,  the  wealth,  and  the  happiness 
of  mankind."  In  moving  for  the  re- 
appointment  of  the  committee  in  Feb 
ruary,  1823,  the  same  gentleman  said: 
' '  We  must  also  get  rid  of  that  feeling 
of  appropriation  which  exhibited  itself 
in  a  disposition  to  produce  every  thing 
necessary  for  our  own  consumption,  and 
to  render  ourselves  independent  of  the 
world.  No  notion  could  be  more  absurd 
or  mischievous ;  it  led,  even  in  peace,  to 
an  animosity  and  rancor  greater  than 
existed  in  time  of  war.  Undoubtedly 
there  would  be  great  prejudices  to  com 
bat,  both  in  this  country  and  elsewhere, 
in  the  attempt  to  remove  the  difficulties 
which  are  most  obnoxious.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  forget  the  attention 
which  was  in  some  respects  due  to  the 
present  system  of  protections,  although 
that  attention  ought  certainly  not  to  be 
carried  beyond  the  absolute  necessity  of 
the  case."  And  in  a  second  report  of 
the  committee,  drawn  by  the  same 
gentleman,  in  that  part  of  it  which  pro 
poses  a  diminution  of  duties  on  timber 
from  the  North  of  Europe,  and  the 
policy  of  giving  a  legislative  preference 
to  the  importation  of  such  timber  in  the 
log,  and  a  discouragement  of  the  impor 
tation  of  deals,  it  is  stated  that  the  com 


mittee  reject  this  policy,  because,  among 
other  reasons,  "  it  is  founded  on  a  prin 
ciple  of  exclusion,  which  they  are  most 
averse  to  see  brought  into  operation,  in 
any  new  Instance,  without  the  warrant 
of  some  evident  and  great  political  ex 
pediency."  And  on  many  subsequent 
occasions  the  same  gentleman  has  taken 
occasion  to  observe,  that  he  differed 
from  those  who  thought  that  manufac 
tures  could  not  flourish  without  restric 
tions  on  trade;  that  old  prejudices  of 
that  sort  were  dying  away,  and  that 
more  liberal  and  just  sentiments  were 
taking  their  place. 

These  sentiments  appear  to  have  been 
followed  by  important  legal  provisions, 
calculated  to  remove  restrictions  and 
prohibitions  where  they  were  most  se 
verely  felt;  that  is  to  say,  in  several 
branches  of  navigation  and  trade.  They 
have  relaxed  their  colonial  system,  they 
have  opened  the  ports  of  their  islands, 
and  have  done  away  the  restriction  which 
limited  the  trade  of  the  colony  to  the 
mother  country.  Colonial  products  can 
now  be  carried  directly  from  the  islands 
to  any  part  of  Europe ;  and  it  may  not 
be  improbable,  considering  our  own  high 
duties  on  spirits,  that  that  article  may 
be  exchanged  hereafter  by  the  English 
West  India  colonies  directly  for  the  tim 
ber  and  deals  of  the  Baltic.  It  may  be 
added,  that  Mr.  Lowe,  whom  the  gentle 
man  has  cited,  says,  that  nobody  sup 
poses  that  the  three  great  staples  of 
English  manufactures,  cotton,  woollen, 
and  hardware,  are  benefited  by  any 
existing  protecting  duties ;  and  that  one 
object  of  all  these  protecting  laws  is 
usually  overlooked,  and  that  is,  that 
they  have  been  intended  to  reconcile  the 
various  interests  to  taxation;  the  corn 
law,  for  example,  being  designed  as 
some  equivalent  to  the  agricultural  in 
terest  for  the  burden  of  tithes  and  of 
poor-rates. 

In  fine,  Sir,  I  think  it  is  clear,  that, 
if  we  now  embrace  the  system  of  prohi 
bitions  and  restrictions,  we  shall  show 
an  affection  for  what  others  have  dis 
carded,  and  be  attempting  to  ornament 
ourselves  with  cast-off  apparel. 

Sir,  I  should  not  have  gone  into  this 


90 


THE   TARIFF. 


prolix  detail  of  opinions  from  any  con 
sideration  of  their  special  importance  on 
the  present  occasion;  but  having  hap 
pened  to  state  that  such  was  the  actual 
opinion  of  the  government  of  England 
at  the  present  time,  and  the  accuracy  of 
this  representation  having  been  so  con 
fidently  denied,  I  have  chosen  to  put  the 
matter  beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  although 
at  the  expense  of  these  tedious  citations. 
I  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  refer 
more  particularly  to  sundry  recent  Brit 
ish  enactments,  by  way  of  showing  the 
diligence  arid  spirit  with  which  that 
government  strives  to  sustain  its  navi 
gating  interest,  by  opening  the  widest 
possible  range  to  the  enterprise  of  indi 
vidual  adventurers.  I  repeat,  that  I 
have  not  alluded  to  these  examples  of  a 
foreign  state  as  being  fit  to  control  our 
own  policy.  In  the  general  principle,  I 
acquiesce.  Protection,  when  carried  to 
the  point  which  is  now  recommended, 
that  is,  to  entire  prohibition,  seems  to 
me  destructive  of  all  commercial  inter 
course  between  nations.  We  are  urged 
to  adopt  the  system  upon  general  prin 
ciples;  and  what  would  be  the  conse 
quence  of  the  universal  application  of 
such  a  general  principle,  but  that  nations 
would  abstain  entirely  from  all  inter 
course  with  one  another?  I  do  not 
admit  the  general  principle ;  on  the  con 
trary,  I  think  freedom  of  trade  to  be  the 
general  principle,  and  restriction  the 
exception.  And  it  is  for  every  state, 
taking  into  view  its  own  condition,  to 
judge  of  the  propriety,  in  any  case,  of 
making  an  exception,  constantly  pre 
ferring,  as  I  think  all  wise  governments 
will,  not  to  depart  without  urgent  reason 
from  the  general  rule. 

There  is  another  point  in  the  existing 
policy  of  England  to  which  I  would 
most  earnestly  invite  the  attention  of 
the  committee;  I  mean  the  warehouse 
system,  or  what  we  usually  call  the 
system  of  drawback.  Very  great  preju 
dices  appear  to  me  to  exist  with  us  on 
that  subject.  We  seem  averse  to  the 
extension  of  the  principle.  The  Eng 
lish  government,  on  the  contrary,  appear 
to  have  carried  it  to  the  extreme  of  lib 
erality.  They  have  arrived,  however,  at 


their  present  opinions  and  present  prac 
tice  by  slow  degrees.  The  transit  system 
was  commenced  about  the  year  1803, 
but  the  first  law  was  partial  and  limited. 
It  admitted  the  importation  of  raw 
materials  for  exportation,  but  it  ex 
cluded  almost  every  sort  of  manufac 
tured  goods.  This  was  done  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  propose  to  prevent 
the  transit  of  Canadian  wheat  through 
the  United  States,  the  fear  of  aiding  the 
competition-  of  the  foreign  article  with 
our  own  in  foreign  markets.  Better 
reflection  or  more  experience  has  in 
duced  them  to  abandon  that  mode  of 
reasoning,  and  to  consider  all  such 
means  of  influencing  foreign  markets  as 
nugatory;  since,  in  the  present  active 
and  enlightened  state  of  the  world, 
nations  will  supply  themselves  from  the 
best  sources,  and  the  true  policy  of  all 
producers,  whether  of  raw  materials  or 
of  manufactured  articles,  is,  not  vainly 
to  endeavor  to  keep  other  vendors  out  of 
the  market,  but  to  conquer  them  in  it  by 
the  quality  and  the  cheapness  of  their 
articles.  The  present  policy  of  England, 
therefore,  is  to  allure  the  importation  of 
commodities  into  England,  there  to  be 
deposited  in  English  warehouses,  thence 
to  be  exported  in  assorted  cargoes,  and 
thus  enabling  her  to  carry  on  a  general 
export  trade  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe. 
Articles  of  all  kinds,  with  the  single 
exception  of  tea,  may  be  brought  into 
England,  from  any  part  of  the  world, 
in  foreign  as  well  as  British  ships,  there 
warehoused,  and  again  exported,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  owner,  without  the  pay 
ment  of  any  duty  or  government  charge 
wrhatever. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  would 
take  notice  also  of  the  recent  proposi 
tion  in  the  English  Parliament  to  abol 
ish  the  tax  on  imported  wool ;  and  it  is 
observable  that  those  who  support  this 
proposition  give  the  same  reasons  that 
have  been  offered  here,  within  the  last 
week,  against  the  duty  which  we  propose 
on  the  same  article.  They  say  that  their 
manufacturers  require  a  cheap  and  coarse 
wool,  for  the  supply  of  the  Mediterranean 
and  Levant  trade,  and  that,  without  a 
more  free  admission  of  the  wool  of  the 


THE   TARIFF. 


91 


Continent,  that  trade  will  all  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  Germans  and  Italians,  who 
will  carry  it  on  through  Leghorn  and 
Trieste.  While  there  is  this  duty  on 
foreign  wool  to  protect  the  wool-growers 
of  England,  there  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  prohibition  on  the  exportation  of  the 
native  article  in  aid  of  the  manufac 
turers.  The  opinion  seems  to  be  gain 
ing  strength,  that  the  true  policy  is  to 
abolish  both. 

Laws  have  long  existed  in  England 
preventing  the  emigration  of  artisans 
and  the  exportation  of  machinery;  but 
the  policy  of  these,  also,  has  become 
doubted,  and  an  inquiry  has  been  insti 
tuted  in  Parliament  into  the  expediency 
of  repealing  them.  As  to  the  emigra 
tion  of  artisans,  say  those  who  disapprove 
the  laws,  if  that  were  desirable,  no  law 
could  effect  it ;  and  as  to  the  exportation 
of  machinery,  let  us  make  it  and  export 
it  as  we  would  any  other  commodity.  If 
France  is  determined  to  spin  and  weave 
her  own  cotton,  let  us,  if  wre  may,  still 
have  the  benefit  of  furnishing  the  ma 
chinery. 

I  have  stated  these  things,  Sir,  to  show 
what  seems  to  be  the  general  tone  of 
thinking  and  reasoning  on  these  subjects 
in  that  country,  the  example  of  which 
has  been  so  much  pressed  upon  us. 
Whether  the  present  policy  of  England 
be  right  or  wrrong,  wise  or  unwise,  it 
cannot,  as  it  seems  clearly  to  me,  be 
quoted  as  an  authority  for  carrying  fur 
ther  the  restrictive  and  exclusive  sys 
tem,  either  in  regard  to  manufactures 
or  trade.  To  re-establish  a  sound  cur 
rency,  to  meet  at  once  the  shock,  tre 
mendous  as  it  was,  of  the  fall  of  prices, 
to  enlarge  her  capacity  for  foreign  trade, 
to  open  wide  the  field  of  individual  en 
terprise  and  competition,  and  to  say 
plainly  and  distinctly  that  the  country 
must  relieve  itself  from  the  embarrass 
ments  which  it  felt,  by  economy,  fru 
gality,  and  renewed  efforts  of  enterprise, 
—  these  appear  to  be  the  general  outline 
of  the  policy  which  England  has  pur 
sued. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
say  a  few  words  upon  a  topic,  but  for 


the  introduction  of  which  into  this  de 
bate  I  should  not  have  given  the  com 
mittee  on  this  occasion  the  trouble  of 
hearing  me.  Some  days  ago,  I  believe 
it  was  when  we  were  settling  the  con 
troversy  between  the  oil-merchants  and 
the  tallow-chandlers,  the  balance  of  trade 
made  its  appearance  in  debate,  and  I 
must  confess,  Sir,  that  I  spoke  of  it,  or 
rather  spoke  to  it,  somewhat  freely  and 
irreverently.  I  believe  I  used  the  hard 
names  which  have  been  imputed  to  me, 
and  I  did  it  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
laying  the  spectre,  and  driving  it  back 
to  its  tomb.  Certainly,  Sir,  when  I 
called  the  old  notion  on  this  subject 
nonsense,  I  did  not  suppose  that  I  should 
offend  any  one,  unless  the  dead  should 
happen  to  hear  me.  All  the  living  gen 
eration,  I  took  it  for  granted,  would 
think  the  term  very  properly  applied. 
In  this,  however,  I  was  mistaken.  The 
dead  and  the  living  rise  up  together  to 
call  me  to  account,  and  I  must  defend 
myself  as  well  as  I  am  able. 

Let  us  inquire,  then,  Sir,  what  is 
meant  by  an  unfavorable  balance  of 
trade,  and  what  the  argument  is,  drawn 
from  that  source.  By  an  unfavorable 
balance  of  trade,  I  understand,  is  meant 
that  state  of  things  in  which  importation 
exceeds  exportation.  To  apply  it  to  our 
own  case,  if  the  value  of  goods  imported 
exceed  the  value  of  those  exported,  then 
the  balance  of  trade  is  said  to  be  against 
us,  inasmuch  as  we  have  run  in  debt  to 
the  amount  of  this  difference.  There 
fore  it  is  said,  that,  if  a  nation  continue 
long  in  a  commerce  like  this,  it  must  be 
rendered  absolutely  bankrupt.  It  is  in 
the  condition  of  a  man  that  buys  more 
than  he  sells ;  and  how  can  such  a  traffic 
be  maintained  without  ruin?  Now,  Sir, 
the  whole  fallacy  of  this  argument  con 
sists  in  supposing,  that,  whenever  the 
value  of  imports  exceeds  that  of  ex 
ports,  a  debt  is  necessarily  created  to 
the  extent  of  the  difference,  whereas, 
ordinarily,  the  import  is  no  more  than 
the  result  of  the  export,  augmented  in 
value  by  the  labor  of  transportation. 
The  excess  of  imports  over  exports,  in 
truth,  usually  shows  the  gains,  not  the 
losses,  of  trade;  or,  in  a  country  that 


92 


THE   TARIFF. 


not  only  buys  and  sells  goods,  but  em 
ploys  ships  in  carrying  goods  also,  it 
shows  the  profits  of  commerce,  and  the 
earnings  of  navigation.  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that,  in  the  usual  course  of 
things,  and  taking  a  series  of  years  to 
gether,  the  value  of  our  imports  is  the 
aggregate  of  our  exports  and  our 
freights.  If  the  value  of  commodities 
imported  in  a  given  instance  did  not  ex 
ceed  the  value  of  the  outward  cargo, 
with  which  they  were  purchased,  then  it 
would  be  clear  to  every  man's  common 
sense,  that  the  voyage  had  not  been 
profitable.  If  such  commodities  fell  far 
short  in  value  of  the  cost  of  the  outward 
cargo,  then  the  voyage  would  be  a  very  los 
ing  one ;  and  yet  it  would  present  exactly 
that  state  of  things,  which,  according  to 
the  notion  of  a  balance  of  trade,  can 
alone  indicate  a  prosperous  commerce. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  return  cargo 
were  found  to  be  worth  much  more  than 
the  outward  cargo,  while  the  merchant, 
having  paid  for  the  goods  exported,  and 
all  the  expenses  of  the  voyage,  finds  a 
handsome  sum  yet  in  his  hands,  which 
he  calls  profits,  the  balance  of  trade  is 
still  against  him,  and,  whatever  he  may 
think  of  it,  he  is  in  a  very  bad  way. 
Although  one  individual  or  all  individ 
uals  gain,  the  nation  loses;  while  all  its 
citizens  grow  rich,  the  country  grows 
poor.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  bal 
ance  of  trade. 

Allow  me,  Sir,  to  give  an  instance 
tending  to  show  how  unaccountably  in 
dividuals  deceive  themselves,  and  im 
agine  themselves  to  be  somewhat  rap 
idly  mending  their  condition,  while  they 
ought  to  be  persuaded  that,  by  that  in 
fallible  standard,  the  balance  of  trade, 
they  are  on  the  high  road  to  ruin.  Some 
years  ago,  in  better  times  than  the  pres 
ent,  a  ship  left  one  of  the  towns  of  New 
England  with  70,000  specie  dollars.  She 
proceeded  to  Mocha,  on  the  Red  Sea,  and 
there  laid  out  these  dollars  in  coffee, 
drugs,  spices,  and  other  articles  procured 
in  that  market.  With  this  new  cargo 
she  proceeded  to  Europe ;  two  thirds  of 
it  were  sold  in  Holland  for  $130,000, 
which  the  ship  brought  back,  and  placed 
in  the  same  bank  from  the  vaults  of 


which  she  had  taken  her  original  outfit. 
The  other  third  was  sent  to  the  ports  of 
the  Mediterranean,  and  produced  a  re 
turn  of  $25,000  in  specie,  and  $15,000  in 
Italian  merchandise.  These  sums  to 
gether  make  $170,000  imported,  which 
is  $100,000  more  than  was  exported,  and 
is  therefore  proof  of  an  unfavorable  bal 
ance  of  trade,  to  that  amount,  in  this 
adventure.  We  should  find  no  great 
difficulty.  Sir,  in  paying  off  our  bal 
ances,  if  this  were  the  nature  of  them 
all. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  all 
these  obsolete  and  exploded  notions  had 
their  origin  in  very  mistaken  ideas  of  the 
true  nature  of  commerce.  Commerce  is 
not  a  gambling  among  nations  for  a 
stake,  to  be  won  by  some  and  lost  by 
others.  It  has  not  the  tendency  neces 
sarily  to  impoverish  one  of  the  parties 
to  it,  while  it  enriches  the  other;  all 
parties  gain,  all  parties  make  profits,  all 
parties  grow  rich,  by  the  operations  of 
just  and  liberal  commerce.  If  the  world 
had  but  one  clime  and  but  one  soil;  if 
all  men  had  the  same  wants  and  the 
same  means,  on  the  spot  of  their  exist 
ence,  to  gratify  those  wants,  — then,  in 
deed,  what  one  obtained  from  the  other 
by  exchange  would  injure  one  party  in 
the  same  degree  that  it  benefited  the 
other;  then,  indeed,  there  would  be  some 
foundation  for  the  balance  of  trade.  But 
Providence  has  disposed  our  lot  much 
more  kindly.  Wre  inhabit  a  various 
earth.  We  have  reciprocal  wants,  and 
reciprocal  means  for  gratifying  one 
another's  wants.  This  is  the  true  ori 
gin  of  commerce,  which  is  nothing  more 
than  an  exchange  of  equivalents,  and, 
from  the  rude  barter  of  its  primitive 
state,  to  the  refined  and  complex  condi 
tion  in  which  we  see  it,  its  principle  is 
uniformly  the  same,  its  only  object  being, 
in  every  stage,  to  produce  that  exchange 
of  commodities  between  individuals  and 
between  nations  which  shall  conduce  to 
the  advantage  and  to  the  happiness  of 
both.  Commerce  between  nations  has 
the  same  essential  character  as  com 
merce  between  individuals,  or  between 
parts  of  the  same  nation.  Cannot  two 
individuals  make  an  interchange  of  com- 


THE   TARIFF. 


modities  which  shall  prove  beneficial  to 
both,  or  in  which  the  balance  of  trade 
shall  be  in  favor  of  both?  If  not,  the 
tailor  and  the  shoemaker,  the  farmer 
and  the  smith,  have  hitherto  very  much 
misunderstood  their  own  interests.  And 
with  regard  to  the  internal  trade  of  a 
country,  in  which  the  same  rule  would 
apply  as  between  nations,  do  we  ever 
speak  of  such  an  intercourse  as  prejudi 
cial  to  one  side  because  it  is  useful  to 
the  other?  Do  we  ever  hear  that,  be 
cause  the  intercourse  between  New  York 
and  Albany  is  advantageous  to  one  of 
those  places,  it  must  therefore  be  ruin 
ous  to  the  other? 

May  I  be  allowed,  Sir,  to  read  a  pas 
sage  on  this  subject  from  the  observa 
tions  of  a  gentleman,  in  my  opinion  one 
of  the  most  clear  and  sensible  writers 
and  speakers  of  the  age  upon  subjects 
of  this  sort?  1  "  There  is  no  political 
question  on  which  the  prevalence  of  false 
principles  is  so  general,  as  in  what  re 
lates  to  the  nature  of  commerce  and  to 
the  pretended  balance  of  trade;  and 
there  are  few  which  have  led  to  a 
greater  number  of  practical  mistakes, 
attended  with  consequences  extensively 
prejudicial  to  the  happiness  of  mankind. 
In  this  country,  our  Parliamentary  pro 
ceedings,  our  public  documents,  and  the 
works  of  several  able  and  popular  writers, 
have  combined  to  propagate  the  impres 
sion,  that  we  are  indebted  for  much  of 
our  riches  to  what  is  called  the  balance 
of  trade."  "Our  true  policy  would 
surely  be  to  profess,  as  the  object  and 
guide  of  our  commercial  system,  that 
which  every  man  who  has  studied  the 
subject  must  know  to  be  the  true  prin 
ciple  of  commerce,  the  interchange  of 
reciprocal  and  equivalent  benefit.  We 
may  rest  assured  that  it  is  not  in  the 
nature  of  commerce  to  enrich  one  party 
at  the  expense  of  the  other.  This  is  a 
purpose  at  which,  if  it  were  practicable, 
we  ought  not  to  aim;  and  which,  if  we 
aimed  at,  we  could  not  accomplish." 
These  remarks,  I  believe,  Sir,  were  writ 
ten  some  ten  or  twelve  years  ago.  They 
are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  opin- 

1  Mr.  Huskisson,  President  of  the  English 
Board  of  Trade. 


ions  advanced  in  more  elaborate  treatises, 
and  now  that  the  world  has  returned  to 
a  state  of  peace,  and  commerce  has  re 
sumed  its  natural  channels,  and  different 
nations  are  enjoying,  or  seeking  to  enjoy, 
their  respective  portions  of  it,  all  see  the 
justness  of  these  ideas,  —  all  see,  that, 
in  this  day  of  knowledge  and  of  peace, 
there  can  be  no  commerce  between  na 
tions  but  that  which  shall  benefit  all 
who  are  parties  to  it. 

If  it  were  necessary,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  might  ask  the  attention  of  the  com 
mittee  to  refer  to  a  document  before  us, 
on  this  subject  of  the  balance  of  trade. 
It  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  ac 
counts,  that,  in  the  course  of  the  last 
year,  our  total  export  to  Holland  ex 
ceeded  two  millions  and  a  half ;  our  total 
import  from  the  same  country  was  but 
seven  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Now, 
can  any  man  be  wild  enough  to  make 
any  inference  from  this  as  to  the  gain  or 
loss  of  our  trade  with  Holland  for  that 
year?  Our  trade  with  Russia  for  the 
same  year  produced  a  balance  the  other 
way,  our  import  being  two  millions,  and 
our  export  but  half  a  million.  But  this 
has  no  more  tendency  to  show  the  Rus 
sian  trade  a  losing  trade,  than  the  other 
statement  has  to  show  that  the  Dutch 
trade  has  been  a  gainful  one.  Neither 
of  them,  by  itself,  proves  any  thing. 

Springing  out  of  this  notion  of  a 
balance  of  trade,  there  is  another  idea, 
which  has  been  much  dwelt  upon  in  the 
course  of  this  debate;  that  is,  that  we 
ought  not  to  buy  of  nations  who  do  not 
buy  of  us;  for  example,  that  the  Russian 
trade  is  a  trade  disadvantageous  to  the 
country,  and  ought  to  be  discouraged, 
because,  in  the  ports  of  Russia,  we  buy 
more  than  we  sell.  Now  allow  me  to 
observe,  in  the  first  place,  Sir,  that  we 
have  no  account  showing  how  much  we 
do  sell  in  the  ports  of  Russia.  Our 
official  returns  show  us  only  what  is  the 
amount  of  our  direct  trade  with  her 
ports.  But  then  we  all  know  that  the 
proceeds  of  another  portion  of  our  ex 
ports  go  to  the  same  market,  though  in 
directly.  We  send  our  own  products, 
for  example,  to  Cuba,  or  to  Brazil;  we 
there  exchange  them  for  the  sugar  and 


94 


THE   TARIFF. 


the  coffee  of  those  countries,  and  these 
articles  we  carry  to  St.  Petersburg,  and 
there  sell  them.  Again ;  our  exports  to 
Holland  and  Hamburg  are  connected 
directly  or  indirectly  with  our  imports 
from  Russia.  What  difference  does  it 
make,  in  sense  or  reason,  whether  a 
cargo  of  iron  be  bought  at  St.  Peters 
burg,  by  the  exchange  of  a  cargo  of 
tobacco,  or  whether  the  tobacco  has  been 
sold  on  the  way,  in  a  better  market,  in 
a  port  of  Holland,  the  money  remitted ' 
to  England,  and  the  iron  paid  for  by  a 
bill  on  London?  There  might  indeed 
have  been  an  augmented  freight,  there 
might  have  been  some  saving  of  com 
missions,  if  tobacco  had  been  in  brisk 
demand  in  the  Russian  market.  But 
still  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the 
whole  voyage  may  not  have  been  highly 
profitable.  That  depends  upon  the  origi 
nal  cost  of  the  article  here,  the  amount 
of  freight  and  insurance  to  Holland,  the 
price  obtained  there,  the  rate  of  ex 
change  between  Holland  and  England, 
the  expense,  then,  of  proceeding  to  St. 
Petersburg,  the  price  of  iron  there,  the 
rate  of  exchange  between  that  place  and 
England,  the  amount  of  freight  and  in 
surance  at  home,  and,  finally,  the  value 
of  the  iron  when  brought  to  our  own 
market.  These  are  the  calculations 
which  determine  the  fortune  of  the  ad 
venture  ;  and  nothing  can  be  judged  of 
it,  one  way  or  the  other,  by  the  relative 
state  of  our  imports  or  exports  with 
Holland,  England,  or  Russia. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  deny, 
that  it  may  often  be  our  interest  to  cul 
tivate  a  trade  with  countries  that  require 
most  of  such  commodities  as  we  can 
furnish,  and  which  are  capable  also  of 
directly  supplying  our  own  wants.  This 
is  the  original  and  the  simplest  form  of 
all  commerce,  and  is  no  doubt  highly 
beneficial.  Some  countries  are  so  situ 
ated,  that  commerce,  in  this  original 
form,  or  something  near  it,  may  be  all 
that  they  can,  without  considerable  in 
convenience,  carry  on.  Our  trade,  for 
example,  with  Madeira  and  the  Western 
Islands  has  been  useful  to  the  country, 
as  furnishing  a  demand  for  some  portion 
of  our  agricultural  products,  which  prob 


ably  could  not  have  been  bought  had  we 
not  received  their  products  in  return. 
Countries  situated  still  farther  from  the 
great  marts  and  highways  of  the  com 
mercial  world  may  afford  still  stronger 
instances  of  the  necessity  and  utility  of 
conducting  commerce  on  the  original 
principle  of  barter,  without  much  assist 
ance  from  the  operations  of  credit  and 
exchange.  All  I  would  be  understood 
to  say  is,  that  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  we  can- carry  on  nothing  but  a  los 
ing  trade  with  a  country  from  which  we 
receive  more  of  her  products  than  she 
receives  of  ours.  Since  I  was  supposed, 
the  other  day,  in  speaking  upon  this  sub 
ject,  to  advance  opinions  which  not  only 
this  country  ought  to  reject,  but  which 
also  other  countries,  and  those  the  most 
distinguished  for  skill  and  success  in 
commercial  intercourse,  do  reject,  1  will 
ask  leave  to  refer  again  to  the  discussion 
which  I  first  mentioned  in  the  English 
Parliament,  relative  to  the  foreign  trade 
of  that  country.  "  With  regard,''  says 
the  mover1  of  the  proposition,  "to  the 
argument  employed  against  renewing 
our  intercourse  with  the  North  of  Eu 
rope,  namely,  that  those  who  supplied 
us  with  timber  from  that  quarter  would 
not  receive  British  manufactures  in  re 
turn,  it  appeared  to  him  futile  and  un 
grounded.  If  they  did  not  send  direct 
for  our  manufactures  at  home,  they 
would  send  for  them  to  Leipsic  and 
other  fairs  of  Germany.  Were  not  the 
Russian  and  Polish  merchants  purchas 
ers  there  to  a  great  amount?  But  he 
would  never  admit  the  principle,  that  a 
trade  was  not  profitable  because  we  were 
obliged  to  carry  it  on  with  the  precious 
metals,  or  that  we  ought  to  renounce  it, 
because  our  manufactures  were  not  re 
ceived  by  the  foreign  nation  in  return 
for  its  produce.  Whatever  we  received 
must  be  paid  for  in  the  produce  of  our 
land  and  labor,  directly  or  circuitously, 
and  he  was  glad  to  have  the  noble 
Earl's  2  marked  concurrence  in  this  prin 
ciple." 

Referring  ourselves  again,  Sir,  to  the 
analogies  of  common  life,  no  one  would 

1  The  Marquess  of  Lansdowne. 

2  Lord  Liverpool. 


THE   TAKIFF. 


95 


say  that  a  farmer  or  a  mechanic  should 
buy  only  where  he  can  do  so  by  the  ex 
change  of  his  own  produce,  or  of  his 
own  manufacture.  Such  exchange  may 
be  often  convenient;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  cash  purchase  may  be  often 
more  convenient.  It  is  the  same  in  the 
intercourse  of  nations.  Indeed,  Mr. 
Speaker  has  placed  this  argument  on 
very  clear  grounds.  It  was  said,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  debate,  that,  if  we 
cease  to  import  English  cotton  fabrics, 
England  will  no  longer  continue  to  pur 
chase  our  cotton.  To  this  Mr.  Speaker 
replied,  with  great  force  and  justice, 
that,  as  she  must  have  cotton  in  large 
quantities,  she  will  buy  the  article  where 
she  can  find  it  best  and  cheapest ;  and 
that  it  would  be  quite  ridiculous  in  her, 
manufacturing  as  she  still  wrould  be,  for 
her  own  vast  consumption  and  the  con 
sumption  of  millions  in  other  countries, 
to  reject  our  uplands  because  we  had 
learned  to  manufacture  a  part  of  them 
for  ourselves.  Would  it  not  be  equally 
ridiculous  in  us,  if  the  commodities  of 
Russia  were  both  cheaper  and  better 
suited  to  our  wants  than  could  be  found 
elsewhere,  to  abstain  from  commerce  with 
her,  because  she  will  not  receive  in  return 
other  commodities  which  we  have  to  sell, 
but  which  she  has  no  occasion  to  buy? 

Intimately  connected,  Sir,  with  this 
topic,  is  another  which  has  been  brought 
into  the  debate ;  I  mean  the  evil  so  much 
complained  of,  the  exportation  of  specie. 
We  hear  gentlemen  imputing  the  loss  of 
market  at  home  to  a  want  of  money,  and 
this  want  of  money  to  the  exportation  of 
the  precious  metals.  We  hear  the  India 
and  China  trade  denounced,  as  a  com 
merce  conducted  on  our  side,  in  a  great 
measure,  with  gold  and  silver.  These 
opinions,  Sir,  are  clearly  void  of  all  just 
foundation,  and  we  cannot  too  soon  get 
rid  of  them.  There  are  no  shallower 
reasoners  than  those  political  and  com 
mercial  writers  who  would  represent  it 
to  be  the  only  true  and  gainful  end  of 
commerce,  to  accumulate  the  precious 
metals.  These  are  articles  of  use,  and 
articles  of  merchandise,  with  this  addi 
tional  circumstance  belonging  to  them, 


that  they  are  made,  by  the  general  con 
sent  of  nations,  the  standard  by  which 
the  value  of  all  other  merchandise  is  to 
be  estimated.  In  regard  to  weights  and 
measures,  something  drawn  from  exter 
nal  nature  is  made  a  common  standard, 
for  the  purposes  of  general  convenience ; 
and  this  is  precisely  the  office  performed 
by  the  precious  metals,  in  addition  to 
those  uses  to  which,  as  metals,  they  are 
capable  of  being  applied.  There  may 
be  of  these  too  much  or  too  little  in  a 
country  at  a  particular  time,  as  there 
may  be  of  any  other  articles.  When 
the  market  is  overstocked  with  them,  as 
it  often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as 
proper  and  as  useful  as  that  of  other 
commodities,  under  similar  circumstan 
ces.  We  need  no  more  repine,  when 
the  dollars  which  have  been  brought 
here  from  South  America  are  despatched 
to  other  countries,  than  when  coffee  and 
sugar  take  the  same  direction.  We 
often  deceive  ourselves,  by  attributing 
to  a  scarcity  of  money  that  which  is  the 
result  of  other  causes.  In  the  course  of 
this  debate,  the  honorable  member  from 
Pennsylvania  *  has  represented  the  coun 
try  as  full  of  every  thing  but  money. 
But  this  I  take  to  be  a  mistake.  The 
agricultural  products,  so  abundant  in 
Pennsylvania,  wiy.  not,  he  says,  sell  for 
money ;  but  they  will  sell  for  money  as 
quick  as  for  any  other  article  which  hap 
pens  to  be  in  demand.  They  will  sell 
for  money,  for  example,  as  easily  as  for 
coffee  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices  which 
properly  belong  to  those  articles.  The 
mistake  lies  in  imputing  that  to  want 
of  money  which  arises  from  want  of 
demand.  Men  do  not  buy  wheat  be 
cause  they  have  money,  but  because 
they  want  wheat.  To  decide  whether 
money  be  plenty  or  not,  that  is,  whether 
there  be  a  large  portion  of  capital  un 
employed  or  not,  when  the  currency  of 
a  country  is  metallic,  we  must  look,  not 
only  to  the  prices  of  commodities,  but 
also  to  the  rate  of  interest.  A  low  rate 
of  interest,  a  facility  of  obtaining  money 
on  loans,  a  disposition  to  invest  in  per 
manent  stocks,  all  of  which  are  proofs 
that  money  is  plenty,  may  nevertheless 
i  Mr.  Tod. 


96 


THE   TARIFF. 


often  denote  a  state  not  of  the  highest 
prosperity.  They  may,  and  often  do, 
show  a  want  of  employment  for  capital ; 
and  the  accumulation  of  specie  shows 
the  same  thing.  We  have  no  occasion 
for  the  precious  metals  as  money,  except 
for  the  purposes  of  circulation,  or  rather 
of  sustaining  a  safe  paper  circulation. 
And  whenever  there  is  a  prospect  of  a 
profitable  investment  abroad,  all  the 
gold  and  silver,  except  what  these  pur 
poses  require,  will  be  exported.  For 
the  same  reason,  if  a  demand  exist 
abroad  for  sugar  and  coffee,  whatever 
amount  of  those  articles  might  exist  in 
the  country,  beyond  the  wants  of  its 
own  consumption,  would  be  sent  abroad 
to  meet  that  demand. 

Besides,  Sir,  how  should  it  ever  occur 
to  anybody,  that  we  should  continue  to 
export  gold  and  silver,  if  we  did  not 
continue  to  import  them  also  ?  If  a 
vessel  take  our  own  products  to  the 
Havana,  or  elsewhere,  exchange  them 
for  dollars,  proceed  to  China,  exchange 
them  for  silks  and  teas,  bring  these  last 
to  the  ports  of  the  Mediterranean,  sell 
them  there  for  dollars,  and  return  to  the 
United  States,  — this  would  be  a  voyage 
resulting  in  the  importation  of  the  pre 
cious  metals.  But  if  she  had  returned 
from  Cuba,  and  the  dollars  obtained 
there  had  been  shipped  direct  from  the 
United  States  to  China,  the  China  goods 
sold  in  Holland,  and  the  proceeds  brought 
home  in  the  hemp  and  iron  of  Russia, 
this  would  be  a  voyage  in  which  they 
were  exported.  Yet  everybody  sees  that 
both  might  be  equally  beneficial  to  the 
individual  and  to  the  public.  I  believe, 
Sir,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  we  have  en 
joyed  great  benefit  in  our  trade  with 
India  and  China,  from  the  liberty  of 
going  from  place  to  place  all  over  the 
world,  without  being  obliged  in  the 
mean  time  to  return  home,  a  liberty  not 
heretofore  enjoyed  by  the  private  traders 
of  England,  in  regard  to  India  and 
China.  Suppose  the  American  ship  to 
be  at  Brazil,  for  example;  she  could 
proceed  with  her  dollars  direct  to  India, 
and,  in  return,  could  distribute  her 
cargo  in  all  the  various  ports  of  Europe 
or  America;  while  an  English  ship,  if 


a  private  trader,  being  at  Brazil,  must 
first  return  to  England,  and  then  could 
only  proceed  in  the  direct  line  from 
England  to  India.  This  advantage  our 
countryrflen  have  not  been  backward  to 
improve ;  and  in  the  debate  to  which  I 
have  already  so  often  referred,  it  was 
stated,  not  without  some  complaint  of 
the  inconvenience  of  exclusion,  and  the 
natural  sluggishness  of  monopoly,  that 
American  ships  were  at  that  moment 
fitting  out -in  the  Thames,  to  supply 
France,  Holland,  and  other  countries 
on  the  Continent,  with  tea;  while  the 
East  India  Company  would  not  do  this 
of  themselves,  nor  allow  any  of  their 
fellow-countrymen  to  do  it  for  them. 

There  is  yet  another  subject,  Mr. 
Chairman,  upon  which  I  would  wish  to 
say  something,  if  I  might  presume  upon 
the  continued  patience  of  the  commit 
tee.  We  hear  sometimes  in  the  House, 
and  continually  out  of  it,  of  the  rate  of 
exchange,  as  being  one  proof  that  we 
are  on  the  downward  road  to  ruin.  Mr. 
Speaker  himself  has  adverted  to  that 
topic,  and  I  am  afraid  that  his  author 
ity  may  give  credit  to  opinions  clearly 
unfounded,  and  which  lead  to  very  false 
and  erroneous  conclusions.  Sir,  let  us 
see  what  the  facts  are.  Exchange  on 
England  has  recently  risen  one  or  one 
and  a  half  per  cent,  partly  owing,  per 
haps,  to  the  introduction  of  this  bill 
into  Congress.  Before  this  recent  rise, 
and  for  the  last  six  months,  I  understand 
its  average  may  have  been  about  seven 
and  a  half  per  cent  advance.  Now, 
supposing  this  to  be  the  real,  and  not 
merely,  as  it  is,  the  nominal,  par  of  ex 
change  between  us  and  England,  what 
would  it  prove?  Nothing,  except  that 
funds  were  wanted  by  American  citi 
zens  in  England  for  commercial  opera 
tions,  to  be  carried  on  either  in  England 
or  elsewhere.  It  would  not  necessarily 
show  that  we  were  indebted  to  England; 
for,  if  we  had  occasion  to  pay  debts  in 
Russia  or  Holland,  funds  in  England 
would  naturally  enough  be  required  for 
such  a  purpose.  Even  if  it  did  prove 
that  a  balance  was  due  England  at  the 
moment,  it  would  have  no  tendency  to 


THE   TARIFF. 


97 


explain  to  us  whether  our  commerce  with 
England  had  been  profitable  or  unprof 
itable. 

But  it  is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact, 
that  the  real  price  of  exchange  is  seven 
and  a  half  per  cent  advance,  nor,  in 
deed,  that  there  is  at  the  present  mo 
ment  any  advance  at  all.  That  is  to 
say,  it  is  not  true  that  merchants  will 
give  such  an  advance,  or  any  advance, 
for  money  in  England,  beyond  what  they 
would  give  for  the  same  amount,  in  the 
same  currency,  here.  It  will  strike 
every  one  who  reflects  upon  it,  that,  if 
there  were  a  real  difference  of  seven  and 
a  half  per  cent,  money  would  be  imme 
diately  shipped  to  England;  because  the 
expense  of  transportation  would  be  far 
less  than  that  difference.  Or  commodi 
ties  of  trade  would  be  shipped  to  Eu 
rope,  and  the  proceeds  remitted  to  Eng 
land.  If  it  could  so  happen,  that 
American  merchants  should  be  willing 
to  pay  ten  per  cent  premium  for  money 
in  England,  or,  in  other  words,  that  a 
real  difference  to  that  amount  in  the 
exchange  should  exist,  its  effects  would 
be  immediately  seen  in  new  shipments 
of  our  own  commodities  to  Europe,  be 
cause  this  state  of  things  would  create 
new  motives.  A  cargo  of  tobacco,  for 
example,  might  sell  at  Amsterdam  for 
the  same  price  as  before;  but  if  its  pro 
ceeds,  when  remitted  to  London,  were 
advanced,  as  they  would  be  in  such  case, 
ten  per  cent  by  the  state  of  exchange, 
this  would  be  so  much  added  to  the  price, 
and  would  operate  therefore  as  a  motive 
for  the  exportation ;  and  in  this  way  na 
tional  balances  are,  and  always  will  be, 
adjusted. 

To  form  any  accurate  idea  of  the  true 
state  of  exchange  between  two  countries, 
we  must  look  at  their  currencies,  and 
compare  the  quantities  of  gold  and  silver 
which  they  may  respectively  represent. 
This  usually  explains  the  state  of  the 
exchanges;  and  this  will  satisfactorily 
account  for  the  apparent  advance  now 
existing  on  bills  drawn  on  England. 
The  English  standard  of  value  is  gold; 
with  us  that  office  is  performed  by  gold, 
and  by  silver  also,  at  a  fixed  relation  to 
each  other.  But  our  estimate  of  silver 


is  rather  higher,  in  proportion  to  gold, 
than  most  nations  give  it;  it  is  higher, 
especially,  than  in  England,  at  the  pres 
ent  moment.  The  consequence  is,  that 
silver,  which  remains  a  legal  currency 
with  us,  stays  here,  while  the  gold  has 
gone  abroad  ;  verifying  the  universal 
truth,  that,  if  two  currencies  be  allowed 
to  exist,  of  different  values,  that  which 
is  cheapest  will  fill  up  the  whole  cir 
culation.  For  as  much  gold  as  will 
suffice  to  pay  here  a  debt  of  a  given 
amount,  we  can  buy  in  England  more 
silver  than  would  be  necessary  to  pay 
the  same  debt  here;  and  from  this  dif 
ference  in  the  value  of  silver  arises 
wholly  or  in  a  great  measure  the  pres 
ent  apparent  difference  in  exchange. 
Spanish  dollars  sell  now  in  England  for 
four  shillings  and  nine  pence  sterling 
per  ounce,  equal  to  one  dollar  and  six 
cents.  By  our  standard  the  same  ounce 
is  worth  one  dollar  and  sixteen  cents, 
being  a  difference  of  about  nine  per 
cent.  The  true  par  of  exchange,  there 
fore,  is  nine  per  cent.  If  a  merchant 
here  pay  one  hundred  Spanish  dollars 
for  a  bill  on  England,  at  nominal  par, 
in  sterling  money,  that  is  for  a  bill  of 
£22  10$.,  the  proceeds  of  this  bill,  when 
paid  in  England  in  the  legal  currency, 
will  there  purchase,  at  the  present  price 
of  silver,  one  hundred  and  nine  Spanish 
dollars.  Therefore,  if  the  nominal  ad 
vance  on  English  bills  do  not  exceed 
nine  per  cent,  the  real  exchange  is  not 
against  this  country;  in  other  words,  it 
does  not  show  that  there  is  any  pressing 
or  particular  occasion  for  the  remittance 
of  funds  to  England. 

As  little  can  be  inferred  from  the 
occasional  transfer  of  United  States 
stock  to  England.  Considering  the  in 
terest  paid  on  our  stocks,  the  entire 
stability  of  our  credit,  and  the  accumu 
lation  of  capital  in  England,  it  is  not  at 
all  wonderful  that  investments  should 
occasionally  be  made  in  our  funds.  As 
a  sort  of  countervailing  fact,  it  may  bo 
stated  that  English  stocks  are  now  actu 
ally  held  in  this  country,  though  proba 
bly  not  to  any  considerable  amount. 

I  will  now  proceed,  Sir,  to  state  some 


98 


THE   TARIFF. 


objections  of  a  more  general  nature  to  the 
course  of  Mr.  Speaker's  observations. 

He  seems  to  me  to  argue  the  question 
as  if  all  domestic  industry  were  con 
fined  to  the  production  of  manufactured 
articles;  as  if  the  employment  of  our 
own  capital  and  our  own  labor,  in  the 
occupations  of  commerce  and  navigation, 
were  not  as  emphatically  domestic  in 
dustry  as  any  other  occupation.  Some 
other  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  the 
debate,  have  spoken  of  the  price  paid 
for  every  foreign  manufactured  article 
as  so  much  given  for  the  encouragement 
of  foreign  labor,  to  the  prejudice  of  our 
own.  But  is  not  every  such  article  the 
product  of  our  own  labor  as  truly  as  if 
we  had  manufactured  it  ourselves?  Our 
labor  has  earned  it,  and  paid  the  price 
for  it.  It  is  so  much  added  to  the  stock 
of  national  wealth.  If  the  commodity 
were  dollars,  nobody  would  doubt  the 
truth  of  this  remark ;  and  it  "is  precisely 
as  correct  in  its  application  to  any  other 
commodity  as  to  silver.  One  man 
makes  a  yard  of  cloth  at  home ;  another 
raises  agricultural  products  and  buys  a 
yard  of  imported  cloth.  Both  these  are 
equally  the  earnings  of  domestic  indus 
try,  and  the  only  questions  that  arise  in 
the  case  are  two:  the  first  is,  which  is 
the  best  mode,  under  all  the  circum 
stances,  of  obtaining  the  article;  the 
second  is,  how  far  this  first  question  is 
proper  to  be  decided  by  government, 
and  how  far  it  is  proper  to  be  left  to 
individual  discretion.  There  is  no 
foundation  for  the  distinction  which 
attributes  to  certain  employments  the 
peculiar  appellation  of  American  in 
dustry;  and  it  is,  in  my  judgment, 
extremely  unwise  to  attempt  such  dis 
criminations. 

We  are  asked,  What  nations  have 
ever  attained  eminent  prosperity  with 
out  encouraging  manufactures?  I  may 
ask,  What  nation  ever  reached  the  like 
prosperity  without  promoting  foreign 
trade?  I  regard  these  interests  as 
closely  connected,  and  am  of  opinion 
that  it  should  be  our  aim  to  cause  them 
to  flourish  together.  I  know  it  would 
be  very  easy  to  promote  manufactures, 
at  least  for  a  time,  but  probably  for  a 


short  time  only,  if  we  might  act  in  dis 
regard  of  other  interests.  We  could 
cause  a  sudden  transfer  of  capital,  and 
a  violent  change  in  the  pursuits  of  men. 
We  cqpld  exceedingly  benefit  some 
classes  by  these  means.  But  what, 
then,  becomes  of  the  interests  of  others? 
The  power  of  collecting  revenue  by 
duties  on  imports,  and  the  habit  of  the 
government  of  collecting  almost  its 
whole  revenue  in  that  mode,  will  enable 
us,  without  exceeding  the  bounds  of 
moderation,  to  give  great  advantages  to 
those  classes  of  manufactures  which  we 
may  think  most  useful  to  promote  at 
home.  What  I  object  to  is  the  im 
moderate  use  of  the  power,  —  exclusions 
and  prohibitions;  all  of  which,  as  I 
think,  not  only  interrupt  the  pursuits 
of  individuals,  with  great  injury  to 
themselves  and  little  or  no  benefit  to 
the  country,  but  also  often  divert  our 
own  labor,  or,  as  it  may  very  properly 
be  called,  our  own  domestic  industry, 
from  those  occupations  in  which  it  is 
well  employed  and  well  paid,  to  others 
in  which  it  will  be  worse  employed  and 
worse  paid.  For  my  part,  I  see  very 
little  relief  to  those  who  are  likely  to  be 
deprived  of  their  employments,  or  who 
find  the  prices  of  the  commodities  which 
they  need  raised,  in  any  of  the  alterna 
tives  which  Mr.  Speaker  has  presented. 
It  is  nothing  to  say  that  they  may,  if 
they  choose,  continue  to  buy  the  foreign 
article;  the  answer  is,  the  price  is  aug 
mented:  nor  that  they  may  use  the 
domestic  article;  the  price  of  that  also 
is  increased.  Nor  can  they  supply  them 
selves  by  the  substitution  of  their  own 
fabric.  How  can  the  agriculturist  make 
his  own  iron?  How  can  the  ship-owner 
grow  his  own  hemp  ? 

But  I  have  a  yet  stronger  objection  to 
the  course  of  Mr.  Speaker's  reasoning; 
which  is,  that  he  leaves  out  of  the  case 
all  that  has  been  already  done  for  the 
protection  of  manufactures,  and  argues 
the  question  as  if  those  interests  were 
now  for  the  first  time  to  receive  aid 
from  duties  on  imports.  I  can  hardly 
express  the  surprise  I  feel  that  Mr. 
Speaker  should  fall  into  the  common 
mode  of  expression  used  elsewhere,  and 


THE  TARIFF. 


ask  if  we  will  give  our  manufacturers  no 
protection.  Sir,  look  to  the  history  of 
our  laws;  look  to  the  present  state  of 
our  laws.  Consider  that  our  whole 
revenue,  with  a  trifling  exception,  is 
collected  at  the  custom-house,  and 
always  has  been;  and  then  say  what 
propriety  there  is  in  calling  on  the  gov 
ernment  for  protection,  as  if  no  pro 
tection  had  heretofore  been  afforded. 
The  real  question  before  us,  in  regard 
to  all  the  important  clauses  of  the  bill, 
is  not  whether  we  will  lay  duties,  but 
whether  we  will  augment  duties.  The 
demand  is  for  something  more  than 
exists,  and  yet  it  is  pressed  as  if  nothing 
existed.  It  is  wholly  forgotten  that  iron 
and  hemp,  for  example,  already  pay  a 
very  heavy  and  burdensome  duty;  and, 
in  short,  from  the  general  tenor  of  Mr. 
Speaker's  observations,  one  would  infer 
that,  hitherto,  we  had  rather  taxed  our 
own  manufactures  than  fostered  them 
by  taxes  on  those  of  other  countries. 
We  hear  of  the  fatal  policy  of  the  tariff 
of  1816;  and  yet  the  law  of  1816  was 
passed  avowedly  for  the  benefit  of  manu 
facturers,  and,  with  very  few  exceptions, 
imposed  on  imported  articles  very  great 
additions  of  tax;  in  some  important 
instances,  indeed,  amounting  to  a  pro 
hibition. 

Sir.  on  this  subject,  it  becomes  us  at 
least  to  understand  the  real  posture  of 
the  question.  Let  us  not  suppose  that 
we  are  beginning  the  protection  of  manu 
factures,  by  duties  on  imports.  What 
we  are  asked  to  do  is,  to  render  those 
duties  much  higher,  and  therefore,  in 
stead  of  dealing  in  general  commenda 
tions  of  the  benefits  of  protection,  the 
friends  of  the  bill,  I  think,  are  bound 
to  make  out  a  fair  case  for  each  of  the 
manufactures  which  they  propose  to 
benefit.  The  government  has  already 
done  much  for  their  protection,  and  it 
ought  to  be  presumed  to  have  done 
enough,  unless  it  be  shown,  by  the  facts 
and  considerations  applicable  to  each, 
that  there  is  a  necessity  for  doing  more. 

On  the  general  question,  Sir,  allow 
me  to  ask  if  the  doctrine  of  prohibition, 
as  a  general  doctrine,  be  not  preposter 
ous.  Suppose  all  nations  to  act  upon 


it;  they  would  be  prosperous,  then, 
according  to  the  argument,  precisely  in 
the  proportion  in  which  they  abolished 
intercourse  with  one  another.  The  less 
of  mutual  commerce  the  better,  upon 
this  hypothesis.  Protection  and  encour 
agement  may  be,  and  doubtless  are, 
sometimes,  wise  and  beneficial,  if  kept 
within  proper  limits;  but  when  carried 
to  an  extravagant  height,  or  the  point  of 
prohibition,  the  absurd  character  of  the 
system  manifests  itself.  Mr.  Speaker 
has  referred  to  the  late  Emperor  Xapo- 
leon,  as  having  attempted  to  naturalize 
the  manufacture  of  cotton  in  France. 
Pie  did  not  cite  a  more  extravagant  part 
of  the  projects  of  that  ruler,  that  is,  his 
attempt  to  naturalize  the  growth  of  that 
plant  itself,  in  France;  wrhereas,  we 
have  understood  that  considerable  dis 
tricts  in*  the  South  of  France,  and  in 
Italy,  of  rich  and  productive  lands,  were 
at  one  time  withdrawn  from  profitable 
uses,  and  devoted  to  raising,  at  great 
expense,  a  little  bad  cotton.  Xor  have 
we  been  referred  to  the  attempts,  under 
the  same  system,  to  make  sugar  and 
coffee  from  common  culinary  vegetables ; 
attempts  wliich  served  to  fill  the  print- 
shops  of  Europe,  and  to  show  us  how 
easy  is  the  transition  from  what  some 
think  sublime  to  that  which  all  admit 
to  be  ridiculous.  The  folly  of  some  of 
these  projects  has  not  been  surpassed, 
nor  hardly  equalled,  unless  it  be  by  the 
philosopher  in  one  of  the  satires  of 
Swift,  who  so  long  labored  to  extract 
sunbeams  from  cucumbers. 

The  poverty  and  unhappiness  of  Spain 
have  been  attributed  to  the  want  of 
protection  to  her  own  industry.  If  by 
this  it  be  meant  that  the  poverty  of 
Spain  is  owing  to  bad  government  and 
bad  laws,  the  remark  is,  in  a  great 
measure,  just.  But  these  very  laws  are 
bad  because  they  are  restrictive,  partial, 
and  prohibitory.  If  prohibition  were 
protection,  Spain  would  seem  to  have 
had  enough  of  it.  Nothing  can  exceed 
the  barbarous  rigidity  of  her  colonial 
system,  or  the  folly  of  her  early  com 
mercial  regulations.  Unenlightened 
and  bigoted  legislation,  the  multitude 
of  holidays,  miserable  roads,  monopolies 


100 


THE  TARIFF. 


on  the  part  of  government,  restrictive 
laws,  that  ought  long  since  to  have  been 
abrogated,  are  generally,  and  I  believe 
truly,  reckoned  the  principal  causes  of 
the  bad  state  of  the  productive  industry 
of  Spain.  Any  partial  improvement  in 
her  condition,  or  increase  of  her  pros 
perity,  has  been,  in  all  cases,  the  result 
of  relaxation,  and  the  abolition  of  what 
was  intended  for  favor  and  protection. 

In  short,  Sir,  the  general  sense  of  this 
age  sets,  with  a  strong  current,  in  favor 
of  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse, 
and  unrestrained  individual  action. 
Men  yield  up  their  notions  of  monopoly 
and  restriction,  as  they  yield  up  other 
prejudices,  slowly  and  reluctantly;  but 
they  cannot  withstand  the  general  tide 
of  opinion. 

Let  me  now  ask,  Sir,  what  relief  this 
bill  proposes  to  some  of  those  great  and 
essential  interests  of  the  country,  the 
condition  of  which  has  been  referred  to 
as  proof  of  national  distress ;  and  which 
condition,  although  I  do  not  think  it 
makes  out  a  case  of  distress,  yet  does 
indicate  depression. 

And  first,  Sir,  as  to  our  foreign  trade. 
Mr.  Speaker  has  stated  that  there  has 
been  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the 
tonnage  employed  in  that  trade.  This 
is  true,  lamentably  true.  In  my  opinion, 
it  is  one  of  those  occurrences  which  ought 
to  arrest  our  immediate,  our  deep,  our 
most  earnest  attention.  What  does  this 
bill  propose  for  its  relief  ?  It  proposes 
nothing  but  new  burdens.  It  proposes 
to  diminish  its  employment,  and  it  pro 
poses,  at  the  same  time,  to  augment  its 
expense,  by  subjecting  it  to  heavier  tax 
ation.  Sir,  there  is  no  interest,  in  regard 
to  which  a  stronger  case  for  protection 
can  be  made  out,  than  the  navigating 
interest.  Whether  we  look  at  its  present 
condition,  which  is  admitted  to  be  de 
pressed,  the  number  of  persons  connected 
with  it,  and  dependent  upon  it  for  their 
daily  bread,  or  its  importance  to  the 
country  in  a  political  point  of  view,  it 
has  claims  upon  our  attention  which 
cannot  be  surpassed.  But  what  do  we 
propose  to  do  for  it?  I  repeat,  Sir, 
simply  to  burden  and  to  tax  it.  By 
a  statement  which  1  have  already  sub 


mitted  to  the  committee,  it  appears  that 
the  shipping  interest  pays,  annually, 
more  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  in 
duties  on  articles  used  in  the  construc 
tion  of  skips.  We  propose  to  add  nearly, 
or  quite,  fifty  per  cent  to  this  amount, 
at  the  very  moment  that  we  appeal  to 
the  languishing  state  of  this  interest  as 
a  proof  of  national  distress.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  our  shipping  employed 
in  foreign  commerce  has,  at  this  mo 
ment,  not  the  shadow  of  government 
protection.  It  goes  abroad  upon  the 
wide  sea  to  make  its  own  way,  and  earn 
its  own  bread,  in  a  professed  competition 
with  the  whole  world.  Its  resources  are 
its  own  frugality,  its  own  skill,  its  own 
enterprise.  It  hopes  to  succeed,  if  it 
shall  succeed  at  all,  not  by  extraordinary 
aid  of  government,  but  by  patience,  vigi 
lance,  and  toil.  This  right  arm  of  the 
nation's  safety  strengthens  its  own  mus 
cle  by  its  own  efforts,  and  by  unwearied 
exertion  in  its  own  defence  becomes 
strong  for  the  defence  of  the  country. 

No  one  acquainted  with  this  interest 
can  deny  that  its  situation,  at  this  mo 
ment,  is  extremely  critical.  We  have 
left  it  hitherto  to  maintain  itself  or  per 
ish;  to  swim  if  it  can,  and  to  sink  if  it 
must.  But  at  this  moment  of  its  ap 
parent  struggle,  can  we  as  men,  can  we 
as  patriots,  add  another  stone  to  the 
weight  that  threatens  to  carry  it  down  V 
Sir,  there  is  a  limit  to  human  power, 
and  to  human  effort.  I  know  the  com 
mercial  marine  of  this  country  can  do 
almost  every  thing,  and  bear  almost  ev 
ery  thing.  Yet  some  things  are  impos 
sible  to  be  done,  and  some  burdens  may 
be  impossible  to  be  borne ;  and  as  it  was 
the  last  ounce  that  broke  the  back  of  the 
camel,  so  the  last  tax,  although  it  were 
even  a  small  one,  may  be  decisive  as  to 
the  power  of  our  marine  to  sustain  the 
conflict  in  which  it  is  now  engaged  with 
all  the  commercial  nations  on  the  globe. 

Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  failures  and 
the  bankruptcies  which  have  taken  place 
in  our  large  cities  have  been  mentioned 
as  proving  the  little  success  attending 
commerce,  and  its  general  decline.  But 
this  bill  has  no  balm  for  those  wounds. 
It  is  very  remarkable,  that  when  the 


THE   TARIFF. 


losses  and  disasters  of  certain  manufac 
turers,  those  of  iron,  for  instance,  are 
mentioned,  it  is  done  for  the  purpose 
of  invoking  aid  for  the  distressed.  Not 
so  with  the  losses  and  disasters  of  com 
merce  ;  these  last  are  narrated,  and  not 
unfrequently  much  exaggerated,  to  prove 
the  ruinous  nature  of  the  employment, 
and  to  show  that  it  ought  to  be  aban 
doned,  and  the  capital  engaged  in  it 
turned  to  other  objects. 

It  has  been  often  said,  Sir,  that  our 
manufacturers  have  to  contend,  not  only 
against  the  natural  advantages  of  those 
who  produce  similar  articles  in  foreign 
countries,  but  also  against  the  action 
of  foreign  governments,  who  have  great 
political  interest  in  aiding  their  own 
manufactures  to  suppress  ours.  But 
have  not  these  governments  as  great  an 
interest  to  cripple  our  marine,  by  pre 
venting  the  growth  of  our  commerce 
and  navigation  ?  What  is  it  that  makes 
us  the  object  of  the  highest  respect,  or 
the  most  suspicious  jealousy,  to  foreign 
states  ?  What  is  it  that  most  enables 
us  to  take  high  relative  rank  among  the 
nations  ?  I  need  not  say  that  this  re 
sults,  more  than  from  any  thing  else, 
from  that  quantity  of  military  power 
which  we  can  cause  to  be  water-borne, 
and  from  that  extent  of  commerce  which 
we  are  able  to  maintain  throughout  the 
world. 

Mr.  Chairman ,  I  am  conscious  of  hav 
ing  detained  the  committee  much  too 
long  with  these  observations.  My  apol 
ogy  for  now  proceeding  to  some  remarks 
upon  the  particular  clauses  of  the  bill  is, 
that,  representing  a  district  at  once  com 
mercial  and  highly  manufacturing,  and 
being  called  upon  to  vote  upon  a  bill 
containing  provisions  so  numerous  and 
so  various,  I  am  naturally  desirous  to 
state  as  well  what  I  approve,  as  what  I 
would  reject. 

The  first  section  proposes  an  aug 
mented  duty  upon  woollen  manufactures. 
This,  if  it  were  unqualified,  wrould  no 
doubt  be  desirable  to  those  who  are  en 
gaged  in  that  business.  I  have  myself 
presented  a  petition  from  the  woollen 
manufacturers  of  Massachusetts,  pray 


ing  an  augmented  ad  valorem  duty  upon 
imported  woollen  cloths ;  and  I  am  pre 
pared  to  accede  to  that  proposition,  to  a 
reasonable  extent.  But  then  this  bill 
proposes,  also,  a  very  high  duty  upon 
imported  wool ;  and,  as  far  as  I  can 
learn,  a  majority  of  the  manufacturers 
are  at  least  extremely  doubtful  whether, 
taking  these  two  provisions  together,  the 
state  of  the  law  is  not  better  for  them 
now  than  it  would  be  if  this  bill  should 
pass.  It  is  said,  this  tax  on  raw  wool 
will  benefit  the  agriculturist ;  but  I  know 
it  to  be  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  best 
informed  of  that  class,  that  it  will  do 
them  more  hurt  than  good.  They  fear 
it  will  check  the  manufacturer,  and  con 
sequently  check  his  demand  for  their  ar 
ticle.  The  argument  is,  that  a  certain 
quantity  of  coarse  wool,  cheaper  than  we 
can  possibly  furnish,  is  necessary  to  en 
able  the  manufacturer  to  carry  on  the 
general  business,  and  that  if  this  cannot 
be  had,  the  consequence  will  be,  not  a 
greater,  but  a  less,  manufacture  of  our 
own  wool.  I  am  aware  that  very  in 
telligent  persons  differ  upon  this  point; 
but  if  we  may  safely  infer  from  that  dif 
ference  of  opinion,  that  the  proposed 
benefit  is  at  least  doubtful,  it  would  be 
prudent  perhaps  to  abstain  from  the  ex 
periment.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  same 
reasoning  has  been  employed,  as  I  have 
before  stated,  on  the  same  subject,  when 
a  renewed  application  was  made  to  the 
English  Parliament  to  repeal  the  duty  on 
imported  wool,  I  believe  scarcely  two 
months  ago;  those  who  supported  the 
application  pressing  urgently  the  neces 
sity  of  an  unrestricted  use  of  the  cheap, 
imported  raw  material,  with  a  view  to 
supply  with  coarse  cloths  the  markets 
of  warm  climates,  such  as  those  of  Egypt 
and  Turkey,  and  especially  a  vast  newly 
created  demand  in  the  South  American 
states. 

As  to  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  it 
is  agreed,  I  believe,  that  they  are  gen 
erally  successful.  It  is  understood  that 
the  present  existing  duty  operates  pretty 
much  as  a  prohibition  over  those  descrip 
tions  of  fabrics  to  which  it  applies.  The 
proposed  alteration  would  probably  en 
able  the  American  manufacturer  to  com- 


THE   TARIFF. 


mence  competition  with  higher-priced 
fabrics;  and  so,  perhaps,  would  an  aug 
mentation  less  than  is  here  proposed. 
I  consider  the  cotton  manufactures  not 
only  to  have  reached,  but  to  have  passed, 
the  point  of  competition.  I  regard  their 
success  as  certain,  and  their  growth  as 
rapid  as  the  most  impatient  could  well 
expect.  If,  however,  a  provision  of  the 
nature  of  that  recommended  here  were 
thought  necessary,  to  commence  new 
operations  in  the  same  line  of  manu 
facture,  I  should  cheerfully  agree  to  it, 
if  it  were  not  at  the  cost  of  sacrificing 
other  great  interests  of  the  country.  I 
need  hardly  say,  that  whatever  promotes 
the  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures 
promotes  most  important  interests  of 
my  constituents.  They  have  a  great 
stake  in  the  success  of  those  establish 
ments,  and,  as  far  as  those  manufac 
tures  are  concerned,  would  be  as  much 
benefited  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill 
as  any  part  of  the  community.  It  is  ob 
vious,  too,  I  should  think,  that,  for  some 
considerable  time,  manufactures  of  this 
sort,  to  whatever  magnitude  they  may 
rise,  will  be  principally  established  in 
those  parts  of  the  country  where  popu 
lation  is  most  dense,  capital  most  abun 
dant,  and  where  the  most  successful  be 
ginnings  have  already  been  made. 

But  if  these  be  thought  to  be  advan 
tages,  they  are  greatly  counterbalanced 
by  other  advantages  enjoyed  by  other 
portions  of  the  country.  I  cannot  but 
regard  the  situation  of  the  West  as  high 
ly  favorable  to  human  happiness.  It 
offers,  in  the  abundance  of  its  new  and 
fertile  lands,  such  assurances  of  per 
manent  property  and  respectability  to 
the  industrious,  it  enables  them  to  lay 
such  sure  foundations  for  a  competent 
provision  for  their  families,  it  makes 
such  a  nation  of  freeholders,  that  it  need 
not  envy  the  happiest  and  most  pros 
perous  of  the  manufacturing  communi 
ties.  We  may  talk  as  we  will  of  well-fed 
and  well-clothed  day-laborers  or  journey 
men  ;  they  are  not,  after  all,  to  be  com 
pared,  either  for  happiness  or  respecta 
bility,  with  him  who  sleeps  under  his 
own  roof  and  cultivates  his  own  fee- 
simple  inheritance. 


With  respect  to  the  proposed  duty  on 
glass,  I  would  observe,  that,  upon  the 
best  means  of  judging  which  I  possess, 
I  am  of  opinion  that  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  is  right  in  stating  that  there 
is  in  effect  a  bounty  upon  the  exporta 
tion  of  the  British  article.  I  think  it 
entirely  proper,  therefore,  to  raise  our 
own  duty  by  such  an  amount  as  shall  be 
equivalent  to  that  bounty. 

And  here,,Mr.  Chairman,  before  pro 
ceeding  to  those  parts  of  the  bill  to 
which  I  most  strenuously  object,  I  will 
be  so  presumptuous  as  to  take  up  a  chal 
lenge  which  Mr.  Speaker  has  thrown 
down.  He  has  asked  us,  in  a  tone  of 
interrogatory  indicative  of  the  feeling 
of  anticipated  triumph,  to  mention  any 
country  in  which  manufactures  have 
flourished  without  the  aid  of  prohib 
itory  laws.  He  has  demanded  if  it  be 
not  policy,  protection,  ay,  and  prohibi 
tion,  that  have  carried  other  states  to 
the  height  of  their  prosperity,  and 
whether  any  one  has  succeeded  with 
such  tame  and  inert  legislation  as.  ours. 
Sir,  I  am  ready  to  answer  this  inquiry. 

There  is  a  country,  not  undistin 
guished  among  the  nations,  in  which 
the  progress  of  manufactures  has  been 
far  more  rapid  than  in  any  other,  and 
yet  unaided  by  prohibitions  or  unnatural 
restrictions.  That  country,  the  happi 
est  which  the  sun  shines  on,  is  our  own. 

The  woollen  manufactures  of  England 
have  existed  from  the  early  ages  of  the 
monarchy.  Provisions  designed  to  aid 
and  foster  them  are  in  the  black-letter 
statutes  of  the  Edwards  and  the  Henrys. 
Ours,  on  the  contrary,  are  but  of  yester 
day;  and  yet,  with  no  more  than  the 
protection  of  existing  laws,  they  are 
already  at  the  point  of  close  and  promis 
ing  competition.  Sir,  nothing  is  more 
unphilosophical  than  to  refer  us,  on 
these  subjects,  to  the  policy  adopted  by 
other  nations  in  a  very  different  state 
of  society,  or  to  infer  that  what  was 
judged  expedient  by  them,  in  their 
early  history,  must  also  be  expedient 
for  us,  in  this  early  part  of  our  own. 
This  would  be  reckoning  our  age  chron 
ologically,  and  estimating  our  advance 
by  our  number  of  years;  when,  in  truth, 


THE    TARIFF. 


103 


we  should  regard  only  the  state  of  so 
ciety,  the  knowledge,  the  skill,  the 
capital,  and  the  enterprise  which  be 
long  to  our  times.  We  have  been 
transferred  from  the  stock  of  Europe, 
in  a  comparatively  enlightened  age,  and 
our  civilization  and  improvement  date 
as  far  back  as  her  own.  Her  original 
history  is  also  our  original  history ;  and 
if,  since  the  moment  of  separation,  she 
has  gone  ahead  of  us  in  some  respects, 
it  may  be  said,  without  violating  truth, 
that  we  have  kept  up  in  others,  and,  in 
others  again,  are  ahead  ourselves.  We 
are  to  legislate,  then,  with  regard  to 
the  present  actual  state  of  society ;  and 
our  own  experience  shows  us,  that, 
commencing  manufactures  at  the  pres 
ent  highly  enlightened  '  and  emulous 
moment,  we  need  not  resort  to  the 
clumsy  helps  with  which,  in  less  auspi 
cious  times,  governments  have  sought 
to  enable  the  ingenuity  and  industry  of 
their  people  to  hobble  along. 

The  English  cotton  manufactures 
began  about  the  commencement  of  the 
last  reign.  Ours  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have  commenced  with  any  earnestness, 
until  the  application  of  the  power-loom, 
in  1814,  not  more  than  ten  years  ago. 
Now,  Sir,  I  hardly  need  again  speak  of 
its  progress,  its  present  extent,  or  its 
assurance  of  future  enlargement.  In 
some  sorts  of  fabrics  we  are  already  ex 
porters,  and  the  products  of  our  facto 
ries  are,  at  this  moment,  in  the  South 
American  markets.  We  see,  then, 
what  can  be  done  without  prohibition 
or  extraordinary  protection,  because  we 
see  what  has  been  done;  and  I  venture 
to  predict,  that,  in  a  few  years,  it 
will  be  thought  wonderful  that  these 
branches  of  manufactures,  at  least, 
should  have  been  thought  to  require 
additional  aid  from  government. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  best  apology  for 
laws  of  prohibition  and  laws  of  mo 
nopoly  will  be  found  in  that  state  of 
society,  not  only  unenlightened  but 
sluggish,  in  which  they  are  most  gener 
ally  established.  Private  industry,  in 
those  days,  required  strong  provocatives, 
which  governments  were  seeking  to  ad 
minister  by  these  means.  Something 


was  wanted  to  actuate  and  stimulate 
men,  and  the  prospects  of  such  profits 
as  would,  in  our  times,  excite  un 
bounded  competition,  would  hardly 
move  the  sloth  of  former  ages.  In 
some  instances,  no  doubt,  these  laws 
produced  an  effect,  which,  in  that 
period,  would  not  have  taken  place 
without  them.  But  our  age  is  of  a 
wholly  different  character,  and  its  legis 
lation  takes  another  turn.  Society  is 
full  of  excitement;  competition  comes 
in  place  of  monopoly;  and  intelligence 
and  industry  ask  only  for  fair  play  and 
an  open  field.  Profits,  indeed,  in  such 
a  state  of  things,  will  be  small,  but 
they  will  be  extensively  diffused ;  prices 
will  be  low,  and  the  great  body  of  the 
people  prosperous  and  happy.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that,  from  the  opera 
tion  of  these  causes,  commercial  wealth, 
while  it  is  increased  beyond  calculation 
in  its  general  aggregate,  is,  at  the  same 
time,  broken  and  diminished  in  its  sub 
divisions.  Commercial  prosperity  should 
be  judged  of,  therefore,  rather  from  the 
extent  of  trade,  than  from  the  magni 
tude  of  its  apparent  profits.  It  has 
been  remarked,  that  Spain,  certainly 
one  of  the  poorest  nations,  made  very 
great  profits  on  the  amount  of  her 
trade ;  but  with  little  other  benefit  than 
the  enriching  of  a  few  individuals  and 
companies.  Profits  to  the  English 
merchants  engaged  in  the  Levant  and 
Turkey  trade  were  formerly  very  great, 
and  there  were  richer  merchants  in 
England  some  centuries  ago,  consider 
ing  the  comparative  value  of  money, 
than  at  the  present  highly  commercial 
period.  When  the  diminution  of  profits 
arises  from  the  extent  of  competition,  it 
indicates  rather  a  salutary  than  an  in 
jurious  change.1 

1  "  The  present  equable  diffusion  of  moder 
ate  wealth  cannot  be  better  illustrated,  than  by 
remarking  that  in  this  age  many  palaces  and 
superb  mansions  have  been  pulled  down,  or 
converted  to  other  purposes,  while  none  have 
been  erected  on  a  like  scale.  The  numberless 
baronial  castles  and  mansions,  in  all  parts  of 
England,  now  in  ruins,  may  all  be  adduced  as 
examples  of  the  decrease  of  inordinate  wealth. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  multiplication  of  com- 


104 


THE   TARIFF. 


The  true  course  then,  Sir,  for  us  to 
pursue,  is,  in  my  opinion,  to  consider 
what  our  situation  is;  what  our  means 
are ;  and  how  they  can  be  best  applied. 
What  amount  of  population  have  we  in 
comparison  with  our  extent  of  soil, 
what  amount  of  capital,  and  labor  at 
what  price  ?  As  to  skill,  knowledge, 
and  enterprise,  we  may  safely  take  it 
for  granted  that  in  these  particulars  we 
are  on  an  equality  with  others.  Keep 
ing  these  considerations  in  view,  allow 
me  to  examine  two  or  three  of  those 
provisions  of  the  bill  to  which  I  feel 
the  strongest  objections. 

To  begin  with  the  article  of  iron. 
Our  whole  annual  consumption  of  this 
article  is  supposed  by  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  to  be  forty-eight  or  fifty 
thousand  tons.  Let  us  suppose  the 
latter.  The  amount  of  our  own  manu 
facture  he  estimates,  I  think,  at  seven 
teen  thousand  tons.  The  present  duty 
on  the  imported  article  is  $15  per  ton, 
and  as  this  duty  causes,  of  course,  an 
equivalent  augmentation  of  the  price  of 
the  home  manufacture,  the  whole  in 
crease  of  price  is  equal  to  $750,000  an 
nually.  This  sum  we  pay  on  a  raw 
material,  and  on  an  absolute  necessary 
of  life.  The  bill  proposes  to  raise  the 
duty  from  $15  to  $22.50  per  ton,  which 
would  be  equal  to  $1,125,000  on  the 
whole  annual  consumption.  So  that, 
suppose  the  point  of  prohibition  which 
is  aimed  at  by  some  gentlemen  to  be 
attained,  the  consumers  of  the  article 
would  pay  this  last-mentioned  sum 
every  year  to  the  producers  of  it,  over 
and  above  the  price  at  which  they  could 
supply  themselves  with  the  same  article 
from  other  sources.  There  would  be  no 
mitigation  of  this  burden,  except  from 
the  prospect,  whatever  that  might  be. 
that  iron  would  fall  in  value,  by  domes 
tic  competition,  after  the  importation 
should  be  prohibited.  It  will  be  easy, 
I  think,  to  show  that  it  cannot  fall;  and 
supposing  for  the  present  that  it  shall 

modious  dwellings  for  the  upper  and  middle 
classes  of  society,  and  the  increased  comforts 
of  all  ranks,  exhibit  a  picture  of  individual  hap 
piness,  unknown  in  any  other  age." — Sir  G. 
Blane's  Letter  to  Lord  Spencer,  in  1800. 


not,  the  result  will  be,  that  we  shall 
pay  annually  the  sum  of  $1,125,000, 
constantly  augmented,  too,  by  increased 
consumption  of  the  article,  to  support  a 
business  that  cannot  support  itself. 

It  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  argu 
ment,  that  this  sum  is  expended  at 
home;  so  it  would  be  if  we  taxed  the 
people  to  support  any  other  useless  and 
expensive  establishment,  to  build  an 
other  Capitol,  for  example,  or  incur  an 
unnecessary  expense  of  any  sort.  The 
question  still  is,  Are  the  money,  time, 
and  labor  well  laid  out  in  these  cases  ? 
The  present  price  of  iron  at  Stockholm, 
I  am  assured  by  importers,  is  $53  per 
ton  on  board,  $48  in  the  yard  before 
loading,  and  probably  not  far  from  $10 
at  the  mines.  Freight,  insurance,  &c. 
may  be  fairly  estimated  at  $15,  to  which 
add  our  present  duty  of  $15  more,  and 
these  two  last  sums,  together  with  the 
cost  on  board  at  Stockholm,  give  $83  as 
the  cost  of  Swedes  iron  in  our  market. 
In  fact,  it  is  said  to  have  been  sold  last 
year  at  $81.50  to  $82  per  ton.  We  per 
ceive,  by  this  statement,  that  the  cost 
of  the  iron  is  doubled  in  reaching  us 
from  the  mine  in  which  it  is  produced. 
In  other  words,  our  present  duty,  with 
the  expense  of  transportation,  gives  an 
advantage  to  the  American  over  the 
foreign  manufacturer  of  one  hundred 
per  cent.  WThy,  then,  cannot  the  iron 
be  manufactured  at  home?  Our  ore 
is  said  to  be  as  good,  and  some  of  it 
better.  It  is  under  our  feet,  and  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  tells  us  that 
it  might  be  wrought  by  persons  who 
otherwise  will  not  be  employed.  Why, 
then,  is  it  not  wrought?  Nothing 
could  be  more  sure  of  constant  sale.  Jt 
is  not  an  article  of  changeable  fashion, 
but  of  absolute,  permanent  necessity, 
and  such,  therefore,  as  would  always 
meet  a  steady  demand.  Sir,  I  think  it 
would  be  well  for  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  to  revise  his  premises,  for  I 
am  persuaded  that  there  is  an  ingre 
dient  properly  belonging  to  the  calcula 
tion  which  he  has  misstated  or  omitted. 
Swedes  iron  in  England  pays  a  duty,  I 
think,  of  about  $27  per  ton ;  yet  it  is 
imported  in  considerable  quantities, 


THE   TARIFF. 


105 


notwithstanding  the  vast  capital,  the 
excellent  coal,  and,  more  important 
than  all  perhaps,  the  highly  improved 
state  of  inland  navigation  in  England ; 
although  I  am  aware  that  the  English 
use  of  Swedes  iron  may  be  thought  to 
be  owing  in  some  degree  to  its  superior 
quality. 

Sir,  the  true  explanation  of  this  ap 
pears  to  me  to  lie  in  the  different  prices 
of  labor;  and  here  I  apprehend  is  the 
grand  mistake  in  the  argument  of  the 
chairman  of  the  committee.  He  says 
it  would  cost  the  nation,  as  a  nation, 
nothing,  to  make  our  ore  into  iron. 
Now,  I  think  it  would  cost  us  precisely 
that  which  we  can  worst  afford;  that  is, 
great  labor.  Although  bar-iron  is  very 
properly  considered  a  raw  material  in 
respect  to  its  various  future  uses,  yet, 
as  bar-iron,  the  principal  ingredient  in 
its  cost  is  labor.  Of  manual  labor,  no 
nation  has  more  than  a  certain  quantity, 
nor  can  it  be  increased  at  will.  As  to 
some  operations,  indeed,  its  place  may 
be  supplied  by  machinery ;  but  there  are 
other  services  which  machinery  cannot 
perform  for  it,  and  which  it  must  per 
form  for  itself.  A  most  important  ques 
tion  for  every  nation,  as  well  as  for 
every  individual,  to  propose  to  itself,  is, 
how  it  can  best  apply  that  quantity  of 
labor  which  it  is  able  to  perform.  La 
bor  is  the  great  producer  of  wealth ;  it 
moves  all  other  causes.  If  it  call  ma 
chinery  to  its  aid,  it  is  still  employed, 
not  only  in  using  the  machinery,  but  in 
making  it.  Now,  with  respect  to  the 
quantity  of  labor,  as  we  all  know,  dif 
ferent  nations  are  differently  circum 
stanced.  Some  need,  more  than  any 
thing,  work  for  hands,  others  require 
hands  for  work ;  and  if  we  ourselves  are 
not  absolutely  in  the  latter  class,  we  are 
still  most  fortunately  very  near  it.  I 
cannot  find  that  we  have  those  idle 
hands,  of  which  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  speaks.  The  price  of  labor 
is  a  conclusive  and  unanswerable  refu 
tation  of  that  idea;  it  is  known  to  be 
higher  writh  us  than  in  any  other  civil 
ized  state,  and  this  is  the  greatest  of  all 
proofs  of  general  happiness.  Labor  in 
this  country  is  independent  and  proud. 


It  has  not  to  ask  the  patronage  of  capi 
tal,  but  capital  solicits  the  aid  of  labor. 
This  is  the  general  truth  in  regard  to 
the  condition  of  our  whole  population, 
although  in  the  large  cities  there  are 
doubtless  many  exceptions.  The  mere 
capacity  to  labor  in  common  agricultu 
ral  employments,  gives  to  our  young 
men  the  assurance  of  independence. 
We  have  been  asked,  Sir,  by  the  chair 
man  of  the  committee,  in  a  tone  of  some 
pathos,  whether  we  will  allow  to  the 
serfs  of  Russia  and  Sweden  the  benefit 
of  making  iron  for  us.  Let  me  inform 
the  gentleman,  Sir,  that  those  same 
serfs  do  not  earn  more  than  seven  cents 
a  day,  and  that  they  work  in  these 
mines  for  that  compensation  because 
they  are  serfs.  And  let  me  ask  the  gen 
tleman  further,  whether  we  have  any 
labor  in  this  country  that  cannot  be 
better  employed  than  in  a  business 
which  does  not  yield  the  laborer  more 
than  seven  cents  a  day  ?  This,  it  ap 
pears  to  me,  is  the  true  question  for  our 
consideration.  There  is  no  reason  for 
saying  that  we  will  work  iron  because 
we  have  mountains  that  contain  the  ore. 
We  might  for  the  same  reason  dig  among 
our  rocks  for  the  scattered  grains  of 
gold  and  silver  which  might  be  found 
there.  The  true  inquiry  is,  Can  we  pro 
duce  the  article  in  a  useful  state  at  the 
same  cost,  or  nearly  at  the  same  cost, 
or  at  any  reasonable  approximation  to- 
wTards  the  same  cost,  at  which  we  can 
import  it  ? 

Some  general  estimates  of  the  price 
and  profits  of  labor,  in  those  countries 
from  which  we  import  our  iron,  might 
be  formed  by  comparing  the  reputed 
products  of  different  mines,  and  their 
prices,  with  the  number  of  hands  em 
ployed.  The  mines  of  Danemora  are 
said  to  yield  about  4,000  tons,  and  to 
employ  in  the  mines  twelve  hundred 
workmen.  Suppose  this  to  be  worth 
$50  per  ton ;  any  one  will  find  by  com 
putation,  that  the  whole  product  would 
not  pay,  in  this  country,  for  one  quarter 
part  of  the  necessary  labor.  The  whole 
export  of  Sweden  was  estimated,  a  few 
years  ago,  at  400,000  ship  pounds,  or 
about  54,000  tons.  Comparing  this 


106 


THE   TARIFF. 


product  with  the  number  of  workmen 
usually  supposed  to  be  employed  in  the 
mines  which  produce  iron  for  exporta 
tion,  the  result  will  not  greatly  differ 
from  the  foregoing.  These  estimates 
are  general,  and  might  not  conduct  us 
to  a  precise  result;  but  we  know,  from 
intelligent  travellers,  and  eye-witnesses, 
that  the  price  of  labor  in  the  Swedish 
mines  does  not  exceed  seven  cents  a 
day.1 

The  true  reason,  Sir,  why  it  is  not  our 
policy  to  compel  our  citizens  to  manu 
facture  our  own  iron,  is  that  they  are 
far  better  employed.  It  is  an  unpro 
ductive  business,  and  they  are  not  poor 
enough  to  be  obliged  to  follow  it.  If 
we  had  more  of  poverty,  more  of  mis 
ery,  and  something  of  servitude,  if  we 
had  an  ignorant,  idle,  starving  popula 
tion,  we  might  set  up  for  iron  makers 
against  the  world. 

The  committee  will  take  notice,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that,  under  our  present  duty, 
together  with  the  expense  of  transpor 
tation,  our  manufacturers  are  able  to 
supply  their  own  immediate  neighbor 
hood;  and  this  proves  the  magnitude  of 
that  substantial  encouragement  which 
these  two  causes  concur  to  give.  There 
is  little  or  no  foreign  iron,  I  presume, 
used  in  the  county  of  Lancaster.  This 
is  owing  to  the  heavy  expense  of  land 

1  The  price  of  labor  in  Russia  may  be  pretty 
well  collected  from  Tooke's  u  View  of  the  Rus 
sian  Empire."  "The  workmen  in  the  mines 
and  the  founderies  are,  indeed,  all  called  mas 
ter-people;  but  they  distinguish  themselves  into 
masters,  under-masters,  apprentices,  delvers, 
servants,  carriers,  washers,  and  separators.  In 
proportion  to  their  ability  their  wages  are  regu 
lated,  which  proceed  from  fifteen  to  upwards 
of  thirty  roubles  per  annum.  The  provisions 
which  they  receive  from  the  magazines  are 
deducted  from  this  pay."  The  value  of  the 
rouble  at  that  time  (1799)  was  about  twenty- 
four  pence  sterling,  or  forty-five  cents  of  our 
money. 

"By  the  edict  of  1799,"  it  is  added,  "a 
laborer  with  a  horse  shall  receive,  daily,  in 
summer,  twenty,  and  in  winter,  twelve  co 
pecks  ;  a  laborer  without  a  horse,  in  summer, 
ten,  in  winter,  eight  copecks." 

A  copeck  is  the  hundredth  part  of  a  rouble, 
or  about  half  a  cent  of  our  money.  The  price 
of  labor  may  have  risen,  in  some  degree,  since 
that  period,  but  probably  not  much. 


carriage ;  and  as  we  recede  farther  from 
the  coast,  the  manufacturers  are  still 
more  completely  secured,  as  to  their  own 
immediate  market,  against  the  compe 
tition  of  the  imported  article.  But 
what  they  ask  is  to  be  allowed  to  supply 
the  sea-coast,  at  such  a  price  as  shall  be 
formed  by  adding  to  the  cost  at  the 
mines  the  expense  of  land  carriage  to 
the  sea;  and  this  appears  to  me  most 
unreasonable.  The  effect  of  it  would 
be  to  compel  the  consumer  to  pay  the 
cost  of  two  land  transportations ;  for,  in 
the  first  place,  the  price  of  iron  at  the 
inland  furnaces  will  always  be  found  to 
be  at,  or  not  much  below,  the  price  of 
the  imported  article  in  the  seaport,  and 
the  cost  of  transportation  to  the  neigh 
borhood  of  the  furnace;  and  to  enable 
the  home  product  to  hold  a  competition 
with  the  imported  in  the  seaport,  the 
cost  of  another  transportation  down 
ward,  from  the  furnace  to  the  coast, 
must  be  added.  Until  our  means  of 
inland  commerce  be  improved,  and  the 
charges  of  transportation  by  that  means 
lessened,  it  appears  to  me  wholly  im 
practicable,  with  such  duties  as  any  one 
would  think  of  proposing,  to  meet  the 
wishes  of  the  manufacturers  of  this  ar 
ticle.  Suppose  we  were  to  add  the  duty 
proposed  by  this  bill,  although  it  would 
benefit  the  capital  invested  in  works 
near  the  sea  and  the  navigable  rivers, 
yet  the  benefit  would  not  extend  far  in 
the  interior.  Where,  then,  are  we  to 
stop,  or  what  limit  is  proposed  to  us? 

The  freight  of  iron  has  been  afforded 
from  Sweden  to  the  United  States  as 
low  as  eight  dollars  per  ton.  This  is 
not  more  than  the  price  of  fifty  miles 
of  land  carriage.  Stockholm,  therefore, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  argument,  may 
be  considered  as  within  fifty  miles  of 
Philadelphia.  Now,  it  is  at  once  a  just 
and  a  strong  view  of  this  case,  to  con 
sider,  that  there  are,  within  fifty  miles 
of  our  market,  vast  multitudes  of  per 
sons  who  are  willing  to  labor  in  the  pro 
duction  of  this  article  for  us,  at  the  rate 
of  seven  cents  per  day,  while  we  have 
no  labor  which  will  not  command,  upon 
the  average,  at  least  five  or  six  times 
that  amount.  The  question  is,  then, 


THE    TARIFF. 


107 


shall  we  buy  this  article  of  these  manu 
facturers,  and  suffer  our  own  labor  to 
earn  its  greater  reward,  or  shall  we  em 
ploy  our  own  labor  in  a  similar  manu 
facture,  and  make  up  to  it,  by  a  tax  on 
consumers,  the  loss  which  it  must  neces 
sarily  sustain. 

I  proceed,  Sir,  to  the  article  of  hemp. 
Of  this  we  imported  last  year,  in  round 
numbers,  6,000  tons,  paying  a  duty  of 
$30  a  ton,  or  $180,000'  on  the  whole 
amount;  and  this  article,  it  is  to  be  re 
membered,  is  consumed  almost  entirely 
in  the  uses  of  navigation.  The  whole 
burden  may  be  said  to  fall  on  one  in 
terest.  It  is  said  we  can  produce  this 
article  if  we  will  raise  the  duties.  But 
why  is  it  not  produced  now?  or  why,  at 
least,  have  we  not  seen  some  speci 
mens  ?  for  the  present  is  a  very  high 
duty,  when  expenses  of  importation  are 
added.  Hemp  was  purchased  at  St. 
Petersburg,  last  year,  at  $101.67  per 
ton.  Charges  attending  shipment,  &c., 
$14.25.  Freight  may  be  stated  at  $30 
per  ton,  and  our  existing  duty  $30  more. 
These  three  last  sums,  being  the  charges 
of  transportation,  amount  to  a  protec 
tion  of  near  seventy-five  per  cent  in 
favor  of  the  home  manufacturer,  if 
there  be  any  such.  And  we  ought  to 
consider,  also,  that  the  price  of  hemp  at 
St.  Petersburg  is  increased  by  all  the 
expense  of  transportation  from  the 
place  of  growth  to  that  port;  so  that 
probably  the  whole  cost  of  transporta 
tion,  from  the  place  of  growth  to  our 
market,  including  our  duty,  is  equal  to 
the  first  cost  of  the  article ;  or,  in  other 
words,  is  a  protection  in  favor  of  our 
own  product  of  one  hundred  per  cent. 

And  since  it  is  stated  that  we  have 
great  quantities  of  fine  land  for  the  pro 
duction  of  hemp,  of  which  I  have  no 
doubt,  the  question  recurs,  Why  is  it 
not  produced  ?  I  speak  of  the  water- 
rotted  hemp,  for  it  is  admitted  that  that 
which  is  dew-rotted  is  not  sufficiently 
good  for  the  requisite  purposes.  I  can 
not  say  whether  the  cause  be  in  climate, 
in  the  process  of  rotting,  or  what  else, 
but  the  fact  is  certain,  that  there  is 
no  American  water-rotted  hemp  in  the 
market.  We  are  acting,  therefore,  upon 


an  hypothesis.  Is  it  not  reasonable  that 
those  who  say  that  they  can  produce  the 
article  shall  at  least  prove  the  truth  of 
that  allegation,  before  new  taxes  are 
laid  on  those  who  use  the  foreign  com 
modity  ?  Suppose  this  bill  passes ;  the 
price  of  hemp  is  immediately  raised 
$14.80  per  ton,  and  this  burden  falls 
immediately  on  the  ship-builder;  and 
no  part  of  it,  for  the  present,  will  go  for 
the  benefit  of  the  American  grower,  be 
cause  he  has  none  of  the  article  that 
can  be  used,  nor  is  it  expected  that  much 
of  it  will  be  produced  for  a  considerable 
time.  Still  the  tax  takes  effect  upon  the 
imported  article;  and  the  ship-owners, 
to  enable  the  Kentucky  farmer  to  re 
ceive  an  additional  $14  on  his  ton  of 
hemp,  whenever  he  may  be  able  to  raise 
and  manufacture  it,  pay,  in  the  mean 
time,  an  equal  sum  per  ton  into  the 
treasury  on  all  the  imported  hemp  which 
they  are  still  obliged  to  use ;  and  this  is 
called  "protection"!  Is  this  just  or 
fair  V  A  particular  interest  is  here  bur 
dened,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  an 
other  particular  interest,  but  burdened 
also  beyond  that,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
treasury.  It  is  said  to  be  important  for 
the  country  that  this  article  should  be 
raised  in  it;  then  let  the  country  bear 
the  expense,  and  pay  the  bounty.  If  it 
be  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  let  the 
sacrifice  be  made  by  the  whole,  and  not 
by  a  part.  If  it  be  thought  useful  and 
necessary,  from  political  considerations, 
to  encourage  the  growth  and  manufac 
ture  of  hemp,  government  has  abundant 
means  of  doing  it.  It  might  give  a  di 
rect  bounty,  and  such  a  measure  would, 
at  least,  distribute  the  burden  equally; 
or,  as  government  itself  is  a  great  con 
sumer  of  this  article,  it  might  stipulate 
to  confine  its  own  purchases  to  the  home 
product,  so  soon  as  it  should  be  shown 
to  be  of  the  proper  quality.  I  see  no 
objection  to  this  proceeding,  if  it  be 
thought  to  be  an  object  to  encourage 
the  production.  It  might  easily,  and 
perhaps  properly,  be  provided  by  law, 
that  the  navy  should  be  supplied  with 
American  hemp,  the  quality  being  good, 
at  any  price  not  exceeding,  by  more 
than  a  given  amount,  the  current  price 


108 


THE   TARIFF. 


of  foreign  hemp  in  our  market.  Every 
thing  conspires  to  render  some  such 
course  preferable  to  the  one  now  pro 
posed.  The  encouragement  in  that  way 
would  be  ample,  and,  if  the  experiment 
should  succeed,  the  whole  object  would 
be  gained;  and,  if  it  should  fail,  no  con 
siderable  loss  or  evil  would  be  felt  by 
any  one. 

I  stated,  some  days  ago,  and  I  wish 
to  renew  the  statement,  what  was  the 
amount  of  the  proposed  augmentation 
of  the  duties  on  iron  and  hemp,  in  the 
cost  of  a  vessel.  Take  the  case  of  a 
common  ship  of  three  hundred  tons,  not 
coppered,  nor  copper-fastened.  It  would 
stand  thus,  by  the  present  duties:  — 

14£  tons  of  iron,  for  hull,  rigging,  and 

anchors,  at  $15  per  ton,      .     .       $217.50 

]0  tons  of  hemp,  at  $30, 300.00 

40  bolts  Russia  duck,  at  $2,  ....  80.00 
20  bolts  Ravens  duck,  at  $1.25,  .  .  .  25.00 
On  articles  of  ship-chandlery,  cabin 

furniture,  hard-ware,  &c.,  ...      40  00 
$002.50 
The  bill  proposes  to  add,  — 

$7.40  per  ton  on  iron,  which  will  be  .  $107.30 
$14.80  per  ton  on  hemp,  equal  to  .  .  148.00 
And  on  duck,  by  the  late  amendment 

of  the  bill,  say  25  per  cent,    .     .      25.00 


But  to  the  duties  on  iron  and  hemp 
should  be  added  those  paid  on  copper, 
whenever  that  article  is  used.  By  the 
statement  which  I  furnished  the  other 
day,  it  appeared  that  the  duties  received 
by  govern inent  on  articles  used  in  the 
construction  of  a  vessel  of  three  hundred 
and  fifty-nine  tons,  with  copper  fasten 
ings,  amounted  to  $1,056.  With  the 
augmentations  of  this  bill,  they  would 
be  equal  to  $1,400. 

Now  I  cannot  but  flatter  myself,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that,  before  the  committee 
will  consent  to  this  new  burden  upon 
the  shipping  interest,  it  will  very  delib 
erately  weigh  the  probable  consequences. 
I  would  again  urgently  solicit  its  atten 
tion  to  the  condition  of  that  interest. 
We  are  told  that  government  has  pro 
tected  it,  by  discriminating  duties,  and 
by  an  exclusive  right  to  the  coasting 
trade.  But  it  would  retain  the  coasting 


trade  by  its  own  natural  efforts,  in  like 
manner,  and  with  more  certainty,  than 
it  now  retains  any  portion  of  foreign 
trade.  JThe  discriminating  duties  are 
now  abolished,  and  while  they  existed, 
they  were  nothing  more  than  counter 
vailing  measures;  not  so  much  designed 
to  give  our  navigation  an  advantage 
over  that  of  other  nations,  as  to  put  it 
upon  an  equality;  and  we  have,  accord 
ingly,  abolished  ours,  when  they  have 
been  willing  to  abolish  theirs.  Look  to 
the  rate  of  freights.  AVere  they  ever 
lower,  or  even  so  low?  I  ask  gentle 
men  who  know,  whether  the  harbor  of 
Charleston,  and  the  river  of  Savannah, 
be  not  crowded  with  ships  seeking  em 
ployment,  and  finding  none?  I  would 
ask  the  gentlemen  from  New  Orleans, 
if  their  magnificent  Mississippi  does 
not  exhibit,  for  furlongs,  a  forest  of 
masts?  The  condition,  Sir,  of  the  ship 
ping  interest  is  not  that  of  those  who 
are  insisting  on  high  profits,  or  strug 
gling  for  monopoly;  but  it  is  the  condi 
tion  of  men  content  with  the  smallest 
earnings,  and  anxious  for  their  bread. 
The  freight  of  cotton  has  formerly  been 
three  pence  sterling,  from  Charleston  to 
Liverpool,  in  time  of  peace.  It  is  now 
I  know  not  what,  or  how  many  fractions 
of  a  penny;  I  think,  however,  it  is  stated 
at  five  eighths.  The  producers,  then,  of 
this  great  staple,  are  able,  by  means  of 
this  navigation,  to  send  it,  for  a  cent  a 
pound,  from  their  own  doors  to  the  best 
market  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  only  re 
mind  the  committee  that,  while  we  are 
proposing  to  add  new  burdens  to  the 
shipping  interest,  a  very  different  line 
of  policy  is  followed  by  our  great  com 
mercial  and  maritime  rival.  It  seems 
to  be  announced  as  the  sentiment  of  the 
government  of  England,  and  undoubt 
edly  it  is  its  real  sentiment,  that  the 
first  of  all  manufactures  is  the  manufac 
ture  of  ships.  A  constant  and  wakeful 
attention  is  paid  to  this  interest,  and 
very  important  regulations,  favorable  to 
it,  have  been  adopted  within  the  last 
year,  some  of  which  I  will  beg  leave  to 
refer  to,  with  the  hope  of  exciting  the 
notice,  not  only  of  the  committee,  but 


THE  TARIFF. 


109 


of  all  others  who  may  feel,  as  I  do,  a 
deep  interest  in  this  subject.  In  the 
first  place,  a  general  amendment  has 
taken  place  in  the  register  acts,  introduc 
ing  many  new  provisions,  and,  among 
others,  the  following:  — 

A  direct  mortgage  of  the  interest  of 
a  ship  is  allowed,  without  subjecting 
the  mortgagee  to  the  responsibility  of  an 
owner. 

The  proportion  of  interest  held  by 
each  owner  is  exhibited  in  the  register, 
thereby  facilitating  both  sales  and  mort 
gages,  and  giving  a  new  value  to  ship 
ping  among  the  moneyed  classes. 

Shares,  in  the  ships  of  copartnerships, 
may  be  registered  as  joint  property,  and 
subject  to  the  same  rules  as  other  part 
nership  effects. 

Ships  may  be  registered  in  the  name 
of  trustees,  for  the  benefit  of  joint-stock 
companies. 

And  many  other  regulations  are  adopt 
ed,  with  the  same  general  view  of  ren 
dering  the  mode  of  holding  the  property 
as  convenient  and  as  favorable  as  pos 
sible. 

By  another  act,  British  registered  ves 
sels,  of  every  description,  are  allowed 
to  enter  into  the  general  and  the  coast 
ing  trade  in  the  India  seas,  and  -may 
now  trade  to  and  from  India,  with  any 
part  of  the  world  except  China. 

By  a  third,  all  limitations  and  restric 
tions,  as  to  latitude  and  longitude,  are 
removed  from  ships  engaged  in  the 
Southern  whale-fishery.  These  regula 
tions,  I  presume,  have  not  been  made 
without  first  obtaining  the  consent  of 
the  East  India  Company;  so  true  is  it 
found,  that  real  encouragement  of  enter 
prise  oftener  consists,  in  our  days,  in 


restraining  or  buying  off  monopolies 
and  prohibitions,  than  in  imposing  or 
extending  them. 

The  trade  with  Ireland  is  turned  into 
a  free  coasting  trade;  light  duties  have 
been  reduced,  and  various  other  beneficial 
arrangements  made,  and  still  others  pro 
posed.  I  might  add,  that,  in  favor  of 
general  commerce,  and  as  showing  their 
confidence  in  the  principles  of  liberal 
intercourse,  the  British  government  has 
perfected  the  warehouse  system,  and 
authorized  a  reciprocity  of  duties  with 
foreign  states,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Privy  Council. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  attention  which  our 
great  rival  is  paying  to  these  important 
subjects,  and  we  may  assure  ourselves 
that,  if  we  do  not  cherish  a  proper  sense 
of  our  own  interests,  she  will  not  only 
beat  us,  but  will  deserve  to  beat  us. 

Sir,  I  will  detain  you  no  longer. 
There  are  some  parts  of  this  bill  which 
I  highly  approve;  there  are  others  in 
which  I  should  acquiesce;  but  those  to 
which  I  have  now  stated  my  objections 
appear  to  me  so  destitute  of  all  justice, 
so  burdensome  and  so  dangerous  to  that 
interest  which  has  steadily  enriched, 
gallantly  defended,  and  proudly  distin 
guished  us,  that  nothing  can  prevail 
upon  me  to  give  it  my  support.1 

1  Since  the  delivery  of  this  speech,  an  ar 
rival  has  brought  London  papers  containing  the 
speech  of  the  English  Chancellor  of  the  Ex 
chequer  (Mr.  Robinson),  on  the  23d  of  Febru 
ary  last,  in  submitting  to  Parliament  the  annual 
financial  statement.  Abundant  confirmation 
will  be  found  in  that  statement  of  the  remarks 
made  in  the  preceding  speech,  as  to  the  prevail 
ing  sentiment,  in  the  English  government,  on  the 
general  subject  of  prohibitory  laws,  and  on  the 
silk  manufacture  and  the  wool  tax  particularly. 


NOTE. 


THIS  is  commonly  called  Mr.  Webster's 
"  Free  Trade  "  speech.  It  has  been  found 
difficult  to  select  one  among  his  many 
speeches  in  support  of  the  policy  of  Pro 
tection  which  would  fully  represent  his 
views  on  the  subject ;  but  the  reasons  for 
his  change  of  opinion,  and  for  his  advocacy 


of  Protection,  are  fully  stated  in  many  of 
the  speeches  printed  in  this  volume,  deliv 
ered  after  the  year  1830.  Perhaps  as  good 
a  statement  as  can  be  selected  from  his 
many  speeches  on  the  Tariff,  in  explana 
tion  of  his  change  of  position  as  to  the 
need,  policy,  and  duty  of  protection  to 


110 


THE   TARIFF. 


American  manufactures,  may  be  found  in 
his  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  on  the  25th  and  26th  of  July, 
1846,  on  the  Bill  "  To  reduce  the  Duties  on 
Imports,  and  for  other  Purposes."  In  this 
speech,  he  made  the  following  frank  avow 
al  of  the  reasons  which  induced  him  to 
reconsider  and  reverse  his  original  opinions 
on  the  subject :  — 

"But,  Sir,  before  I  proceed  further  with  this 
part  of  the  case,  I  will  take  notice  of  what  ap 
pears,  latterly,  to  be  an  attempt,  by  the  repub- 
lication  of  opinions  and  expressions,  arguments 
and  speeches  of  mine,  at  an  earlier  and  later 
period  of  life,  to  found  against  me  a  charge  of 
inconsistency,  on  this  subject  of  the  protective 
policy  of  the  country.  Mr.  President,  if  it  be* 
an  inconsistency  to  hold  an  opinion  upon  a  sub 
ject  at  one  time  and  in  one  state  of  circum 
stances,  and  to  hold  a  different  opinion  upon  the 
same  subject  at  another  time  and  in  a  different 
ate  of  r-irp-ninft^ffliftftH,  T  admit  the  charge/ 
ay,  Sir,  1  will  go  further;  and  in  regard™ 
questions  which,  from  their  nature,  do  not  de 
pend  upon  circumstances  for  their  true  and  just 
solution,  I  mean  constitutional  questions,  if  it  be 
an  inconsistency  to  hold  an  opinion  to-day,  even 
upon  such  a  question,  and  on  that  same  ques 
tion  to  hold  a  different  opinion  a  quarter  of  a 
century  afterwards,  upon  a  more  comprehensive 
view  of  the  whole  subject,  with  a  more  thorough 
investigation  into  the  original  purposes  and  ob 
jects  of  that  Constitution,  and  especially  after  a 
more  thorough  exposition  of  those  objects  and 
purposes  by  those  who  framed  it,  and  have  been 
trusted  to  administer  it,  I  should  not  shrink 
even  from  that  imputation.  I  hope  I  know 
more  of  the  Constitution  of  my  country  than  I 
did  when  I  was  twenty  years  ofd.  I  hope  I  have 
contemplated  its  great  objects  more  broadly.  I 
hope  I  have  read  with  deeper  interest  the  senti 
ments  of  the  great  men  who  framed  it.  I  hope 
I  have  studied  with  more  care  the  condition  of 
the  country  when  the  convention  assembled  to 
form  it.  And  yet  I  do  not  know  that  I  have 
much  to  retract  "or  to  change  on  these  points. 

"But,  Sir,  I  am  of  the  opinion  of  a  very 
eminent  person,  who  had  occasion,  not  long 
since,  to  speak  of  this  topic  in  another  place. 
Inconsistencies  of  opinion,  arising  from  changes 
of  circumstances,  are  often  justifiable.  But 


there  is  one  sort  of  inconsistencv  which  is  cul 
pable.  It  is  the  inconsistency  between  a  man's 
conviction  and  his  vote;  between  his  conscience 
and  his  conduct.  No  man  shall  ever  charge  me 
with  an  inconsistency  like  that.  And  now,  Sir, 
allow  me  to  say,  that  I  am  quite  indifferent,  or 
rather  thankful,  to  those  conductors  of  the  pub 
lic  press  who  think  they  cannot  do  better  than 
now  and  then  to  spread  my  poor  opinions  before 
the  public. 

"1  have  said  many  times,  and  it  is  true,  that, 
up  to  the  year  1824,"  the  people  of  that  part  of 
the  country  to  which  I  belong,  being  addicted 
to  commerce,  having  been  successful  in  com 
merce,  their  capital  being  very  much  engaged 
in  commerce,  were  averse  to  'entering  upon  a 
system  of  manufacturing  operations.  Every 
member  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Massa 
chusetts,  with  the  exception,  I  think,  of  one, 
voted  against  the  act  of  1824.  But  what  were 
we  to  do  V  Were  we  not  bound,  after  1817  and 
1824,  to  consider  that  the  policy  of  the  country 
was  settled,  had  become  settled,  as  a  policy,  to 
protect  the  domestic  industry  of  the  countiy  by 
solemn  laws?  The  leading  speech1  which 
ushered  in  the  act  of  1824  was  called  a  speech 
for  the  '  American  System.'  The  bill  was  car 
ried  principally  by  the  Middle  States.  Penn 
sylvania  and  New  York  would  have  it  so  ;  and 
what  were  we  to  do?  Were  we  to  stand  aloof 
from  the  occupations  which  others  were  pursuing 
around  us  ?  Were  we  to  pick  clean  teeth  on  a 
constitutional  doubt  which  a  majority  in  the 
councils  of  the  nation  had  overruled?  "No,  Sir; 
we  had  no  option.  All  that  was  left  us  was  to 
fall  in  with  the  settled  policy  of  the  country; 
because,  if  any  thing  can  ever  settle  the  policy 
of  the  country,  or  if  any  thing  can  ever  settle 
the  practical  construction  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  country,  it  must  be  these  repeated  decisions 
of  Congress,  and  enactments  of  successive  laws 
conformable  to  these  decisions.  New  England, 
then,  did  fall  in.  She  went  into  manufactur 
ing  operations,  not  from  original  choice,  but 
from  the  necessity  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  legislation  of  the  country  had  placed 
her.  And,  for  one,  I  resolved  then,  and  have 
acted  upon  the  resolution  ever  since,  that,  hav 
ing  compelled  the  Eastern  States  to  go  into 
these  pursuits  for  a  livelihood,  the  country  was 
bound  to  fulfil  the  just  expectations  which  it 
had  inspired." 

1  That  of  Mr.  Clay. 


THE    CASE    OF    GIBBONS    AND    OGDEN. 

AN    ARGUMENT    MADE    IN    THE    CASE    OF    GIBBONS    AND    OGDEN,    IN    THE 
SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES,   FEBRUARY  TERM,  1824. 


[THIS  was  an  appeal  from  the  Court  for 
the  Trial  of  Impeachments  and  Correc 
tion  of  Errors  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
Aaron  Ogden  filed  his  bill  in  the  Court  of 
Chancery  of  that  State,  against  Thomas 
Gibbons,  setting  forth  the  several  acts  of 
the  legislature  thereof,  enacted  for  the  pur 
pose  of  securing  to  Robert  R.  Livingston 
and  Robert  Fulton  the  exclusive  navigation 
of  all  the  waters  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
that  State,  with  boats  moved  by  fire  or 
steam,  for  a  term  of  years  which  had  not 
then  expired;  and  authorizing  the  Chan 
cellor  to  award  an  injunction,  restraining 
any  person  whatever  from  navigating  those 
waters  with  boats  of  that  description.  The 
bill  stated  an  assignment  from  Livingston 
and  Fulton  to  one  John  R.  Livingston,  and 
from  him  to  the  complainant,  Ogden,  of 
the  right  to  navigate  the  waters  between 
Elizabethtown,  and  other  places  in  New 
Jersey,  and  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and  that 
Gibbons,  the  defendant  below,  was  in  pos 
session  of  two  steamboats,  called  the  Stou- 
dinger  and  the  Bellona,  which  were  actually 
employed  in  running  between  New  York 
and  Elizabethtown,  in  violation  of  the  ex 
clusive  privilege  conferred  on  the  complain 
ant,  and  praying  an  injunction  to  restrain 
the  said  Gibbons  from  using  the  said  boats, 
or  any  other  propelled  by  fire  or  steam,  in 
navigating  the  waters  within  the  territory 
of  New  York. 

The  injunction  having  been  awarded,  the 
answer  of  Gibbons  was  filed,  in  which  he 
stated,  that  the  boats  employed  by  him 
were  duly  enrolled  and  licensed  to  be  em 
ployed  in  carrying  on  the  coasting  trade, 
under  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  the  18th 
of  February,  1793,  ch.  8,  entitled,  "An Act 
for  enrolling  and  licensing  ships  and  vessels 
to  be  employed  in  the  coasting  trade  and 
fisheries,  and  for  regulating  the  same." 
And  the  defendant  insisted  on  his  right,  in 
virtue  of  such  licenses,  to  navigate  the 
waters  between  Elizabethtown  and  the  city 
of  New  York,  the  said  acts  of  the  legisla 
ture  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  con 
trary  notwithstanding.  At  the  hearing,  the 
Chancellor  perpetuated  the  injunction,  be 


ing  of  the  opinion  that  the  said  acts  were 
not  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  were  valid.  This 
decree  was  affirmed  in  the  Court  for  the 
Trial  of  Impeachments  and  Correction  of 
Errors,  which  is  the  highest  court  of  law 
and  equity  in  the  State  of  New  York  be 
fore  which  the  cause  could  be  carried,  and 
it  was  thereupon  carried  up  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  by  appeal. 

The  following  argument  was  made  by 
Mr.  Webster,  for  the  plaintiff  in  error.] 

IT  is  admitted,  that  there  is  a  very  re 
spectable  weight  of  authority  in  favor 
of  the  decision  which  is  sought  to  be 
reversed.  The  laws  in  question,  I  am 
aware,  have  been  deliberately  re-enacted 
by  the  legislature  of  New  York;  and 
they  have  also  received  the  sanction, 
at  different  times,  of  all  her  judicial 
tribunals,  than  which  there  are  few,  if 
any,  in  the  country,  more  justly  entitled 
to  respect  and  deference.  The  disposi 
tion  of  the  court  will  be,  undoubtedly, 
to  support,  if  it  can,  laws  so  passed  and 
so  sanctioned.  I  admit,  therefore,  that 
it  is  justly  expected  of  us  thkt  we  should 
make  out  a  clear  case ;  and  unless  we  do 
so,  we  cannot  hope  for  a  reversal.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that 
the  whole  of  this  branch  of  power,  as 
exercised  by  this  court,  is  a  power  of 
revision.  The  question  must  be  decided 
by  the  State  courts,  and  decided  in  a 
particular  manner,  before  it  can  be 
brought  here  at  all.  Such  decisions 
alone  give  this  court  jurisdiction;  and 
therefore,  while  they  are  to  be  respected 
as  the  judgments  of  learned  judges,  they 
are  yet  in  the  condition  of  all  decisions 
from  which  the  law  allows  an  appeal. 


112 


THE   CASE   OF   GIBBONS   AND   OGDEN. 


It  will  not  be  a  waste  of  time  to  ad 
vert  to  the  existing  state  of  the  facts 
connected  with  the  subject  of  this  liti 
gation.  The  use  of  steamboats  on  the 
coasts  and  in  the  bays  and  rivers  of  the 
country,  has  become  very  general.  The 
intercourse  of  its  different  parts  essen 
tially  depends  upon  this  mode  of  con 
veyance  and  transportation.  Rivers  and 
bays,  in  many  cases,  form  the  divisions 
between  States;  and  thence  it  is  obvious, 
that,  if  the  States  should  make  regula 
tions  for  the  navigation  of  these  waters, 
and  such  regulations  should  be  repug 
nant  and  hostile,  embarrassment  would 
necessarily  be  caused  to  the  general 
intercourse  of  the  community.  Such 
events  have  actually  occurred,  and  have 
created  the  existing  state  of  things. 

By  the  law  of  New  York,  no  one  can 
navigate  the  bay  of  New  York,  the  North 
River,  the  Sound,  the  lakes,  or  any  of 
the  waters  of  that  State,  by  steam- ves 
sels,  without  a  license  from  the  grantees 
of  New  York,  under  penalty  of  forfeit 
ure  of  the  vessel. 

By  the  law  of  the  neighboring  State 
of  Connecticut,  no  one  can  enter  her 
waters  with  a  steam- vessel  having  such 
license. 

By  the  law  of  New  Jersey,  if  any  citi 
zen  of  that  State  shall  be  restrained, 
under  the  New  York  law,  from  using 
steamboats  between  the  ancient  shores 
of  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  he  shall 
be  entitled  to  an  action  for  damages,  in 
New  Jersey,  with  treble  costs  against 
the  party  who  thus  restrains  or  impedes 
him  under  the  law  of  New  York  !  This 
act  of  New  Jersey  is  called  an  act  of 
retortion  against  the  illegal  and  op 
pressive  legislation  of  New  York;  and 
seems  to  be  defended  on  those  grounds 
of  public  law  which  justify  reprisals  be 
tween  independent  States. 

It  will  hardly  be  contended,  that  all 
these  acts  are  consistent  with  the  laws 
and  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
If  there  is  no  power  in  the  general  gov 
ernment  to  control  this  extreme  bel 
ligerent  legislation  of  the  States,  the 
powers  of  the  government  are  essentially 
deficient  in  a  most  important  and  inter 
esting  particular.  The  present  contro 


versy  respects  the  earliest  of  these  State 
laws,  those  of  New  Y'ork.  On  these, 
this  court  is  now  to  pronounce;  and  if 
they  should  be  declared  to  be  valid  and 
operative^  I  hope  somebody  will  point 
out  where  the  State  right  stops,  and  on 
what  grounds  the  acts  of  other  States 
are  to  be  held  inoperative  and  void. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  advert  more 
particularly  to  the  laws  of  New  York, 
as  they  are  stated  in  the  record.  The 
first  was  passed  March  19th,  1787.  By 
this  act,  a  sole  and  exclusive  right  was 
granted  to  John  Fitch,  of  making  and 
using  every  kind  of  boat  or  vessel  im 
pelled  by  steam,  in  all  creeks,  rivers, 
bays,  and  waters  within  the  territory 
and  jurisdiction  of  New  York  for  four 
teen  years. 

On  the  27th  of  March,  1798,  an  act 
was  passed,  on  the  suggestion  that  Fitch 
was  dead,  or  had  withdrawn  from  the 
State  without  having  made  any  attempt 
to  use  his  privilege,  repealing  the  grant 
to  him,  and  conferring  similar  privileges 
on  Robert  R.  Livingston,  for  the  term  of 
twenty  years,  on  a  suggestion,  made  by 
him,  that  he  was  possessor  of  a  mode  of 
applying  the  steam-engine  to  propel  a 
boat,  on  new  and  advantageous  prin 
ciples.  On  the  5th  of  April,  1803,  an 
other  act  was  passed,  by  which  it  was 
declared,  that  the  rights  and  privileges 
granted  to  Robert  R.  Livingston  by  the 
last  act  should  be  extended  to  him  and 
Robert  Fulton,  for  twenty  years  from 
the  passing  of  the  act.  Then  there  is 
the  act  of  April  11,  1808,  purporting  to 
extend  the  monopoly,  in  point  of  time, 
five  years  for  every  additional  boat,  the 
whole  duration,  however,  not  to  exceed 
thirty  years;  and  forbidding  any  and  all 
persons  to  navigate  the  waters  of  the 
State  with  any  steam  boat  or  vessel, 
without  the  license  of  Livingston  and 
Fulton,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of 
the  boat  or  vessel.  And  lastly  comes 
the  act  of  April  9,  1811,  for  enforcing 
the  provisions  of  the  last-mentioned  act, 
and  declaring,  that  the  forfeiture  of  the 
boat  or  vessel  found  navigating  against 
the  provisions  of  the  previous  acts  shall 
be  deemed  to  accrue  on  the  day  on  which 
such  boat  or  vessel  should  navigate  the 


THE   CASE  OF   GIBBONS   AND   OGDEN. 


113 


waters  of  the  State;  and  that  Living 
ston  and  Fulton  might  immediately  have 
an  action  for  snch  boat  or  vessel,  in  like 
manner  as  if  they  themselves  had  been 
dispossessed  thereof  by  force  ;  and  that, 
on  bringing  any  such  suit,  the  defendant 
therein  should  be  prohibited,  by  injunc 
tion,  from  removing  the  boat  or  vessel 
out  of  the  State,  or  using  it  within  the 
State.  There  are  one  or  two  other  acts 
mentioned  in  the  pleadings,  which  prin 
cipally  respect  the  time  allowed  for  com 
plying  with  the  condition  of  the  grant, 
and  are  not  material  to  the  discussion  of 
the  case. 

By  these  acts,  then,  an  exclusive  right 
is  given  to  Livingston  and  Fulton  to  use 
steam  navigation  on  all  the  waters  of 
New  York,  for  thirty  years  from  1808. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  recite  the  sev 
eral  conveyances  and  agreements,  stated 
in  the  record,  by  which  Ogden,  the  plain 
tiff  below,  derives  title  under  Living 
ston  and  Fulton  to  the  exclusive  use 
of  part  of  these  waters  for  steam  navi 
gation. 

The  appellant  being  owner  of  a  steam 
boat,  and  being  found  navigating  the 
waters  between  New  Jersey  and  the  city 
of  New  York,  over  which  waters  Ogden, 
the  plaintiff  below,  claims  an  exclusive 
right,  under  Livingston  and  Fulton,  this 
bill  was  filed  against  him  by  Ogden, 
in  October,  1818,  and  an  injunction 
granted,  restraining  him  from  such  use 
of  his  boat.  This  injunction  was  made 
perpetual,  on  the  final  hearing  of  the 
cause,  in  the  Court  of  Chancery;  and 
the  decree  of  the  Chancellor  has  been 
duly  affirmed  in  the  Court  of  Errors. 
The  right,  therefore,  which  the  plaintiff 
below  asserts,  to  have  and  maintain  his 
injunction,  depends  obviously  on  the 
general  validity  of  the  New  York  laws, 
and  especially  on  their  force  and  opera 
tion  as  against  the  right  set  up  by  the 
defendant.  This  right  he  states  in  his 
answer  to  be,  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  New 
Jersey,  and  owner  of  the  steamboat  in 
question;  that  the  boat  is  a  vessel  of 
more  than  twenty  tons  burden,  duly  en 
rolled  and  licensed  for  carrying  on  the 
coasting  trade,  and  intended  to  be  em 
ployed  by  him  in  that  trade,  between 


Elizabeth  town,  in  New  Jersey,  and  the 
city  of  New  York ;  and  that  it  was  ac 
tually  employed  in  navigating  between 
those  places  at  the  time  of,  and  until 
notice  of,  the  injunction  from  the  Court 
of  Chancery  was  served  on  him. 

On  these  pleadings  the  substantial 
question  is  raised,  Are  these  laws  such 
as  the  legislature  of  New  York  has  a 
right  to  pass?  If  so,  do  they,  secondly, 
in  their  operation,  interfere  with  any 
right  enjoyed  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  and  are  they 
therefore  void,  as  far  as  such  interfer 
ence  extends? 

It  may  be  well  to  state  again  their 
general  purport  and  effect,  and  the  pur 
port  and  effect  of  the  other  State  laws 
which  have  been  enacted  by  way  of  re 
taliation. 

A  steam-vessel,  of  any  description, 
going  to  New  York,  is  forfeited  to  the 
representatives  of  Livingston  and  Ful 
ton,  unless  she  have  their  license.  Going 
from  New  York  or  elsewhere  to  Con 
necticut,  she  is  pronibited  from  entering 
the  waters  of  that  State  if  she  have  such 
license. 

If  the  representatives  of  Livingston 
and  Fulton  in  New  York  carry  into  ef 
fect,  by  judicial  process,  the  provision 
of  the  New  York  laws,  against  any  citi 
zen  of  New  Jersey,  they,  expose  them 
selves  to  a  statute  action  in  New  Jersey 
for  all  damages,  and  treble  costs. 

The  New  York  laws  extend  to  all 
steam- vessels ;  to  steam  frigates,  steam 
ferry-boats,  and  all  intermediate  classes. 
They  extend  to  public  as  well  as  private 
ships;  and  to  vessels  employed  in  for 
eign  commerce,  as  well  as  to  those  em 
ployed  in  the  coasting  trade. 

The  remedy  is  as  summary  as  the 
grant  itself  is  ample;  for  immediate 
confiscation,  without  seizure,  trial,  or 
judgment,  is  the  penalty  of  infringe 
ment. 

In  regard  to  these  acts,  I  shall  con 
tend,  in  the  first  place,  that  they  exceed 
the  power  of  the  legislature;  and,  sec 
ondly,  that,  if  they  could  be  considered 
valid  for  any  purpose,  they  are  void 
still,  as  against  any  right  enjoyed  under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  with  which 


114 


THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN. 


they  come  in  collision;  and  that  in  this 
case  they  are  found  interfering  with  such 
rights. 

I  shall  contend  that  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  regulate  commerce  is  complete 
and  entire,  and,  to  a  certain  extent, 
necessarily  exclusive;  that  the  acts  in 
question  are  regulations  of  commerce, 
in  a  most  important  particular,  af 
fecting  it  in  those  respects  in  which 
it  is  under  the  exclusive  authority  of 
Congress.  I  state  this  first  proposi 
tion  guardedly.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say,  that  all  regulations  which  may,  in 
their  operation,  affect  commerce,  are  ex 
clusively  in  the  power  of  Congress ;  but 
that  such  power  as  has  been  exercised 
in  this  case  does  not  remain  with  the 
States.  Nothing  is  more  complex  than 
commerce;  and  in  such  an  age  as  this, 
no  words  embrace  a  wider  field  than 
commercial  regulation.  Almost  all  the 
business  and  intercourse  of  life  may  be 
connected  incidentally,  more  or  less, 
with  commercial  regulations.  But  it  is 
only  necessary  to  apply  to  this  part  of 
the  Constitution  the  well-settled  rules  of 
construction.  Some  powers  are  held  to 
be  exclusive  in  Congress,  from  the  use 
of  exclusive  words  in  the  grant;  others, 
from  the  prohibitions  on  the  States  to 
exercise  similar  powers;  and  others, 
again,  from  the  nature  of  the  powers 
themselves.  It  has  been  by  this  mode 
of  reasoning  that  the  court  has  adjudi 
cated  many  important  questions;  and 
the  same  mode  is  proper  here.  And,  as 
some  powers  have  been  held  to  be  exclu 
sive,  and  others  not  so,  under  the  same 
form  of  expression,  from  the  nature  of 
the  different  powers  respectively;  so 
where  the  power,  on  any  one  subject,  is 
given  in  general  words,  like  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce,  the  true  method 
of  construction  will  be  to  consider  of 
what  parts  the  grant  is  composed,  and 
which  of  those,  from  the  nature  of  the 
thing,  ought  to*  be  considered  exclusive. 
The  right  set  up  in  this  case,  under  the 
laws  of  New  York,  is  a  monopoly.  Now 
I  think  it  very  reasonable  to  say,  that 
the  Constitution  never  intended  to  leave 
with  the  States  the  power  of  granting 
monopolies  either  of  trade  or  of  naviga 


tion  ;  and  therefore,  that,  as  to  this,  the 
commercial  power  is  exclusive  in  Con 
gress. 

It  is  in  vain  to  look  for  a  precise  and 
exact  definition  of  the  powers  of  Con 
gress  on  several  subjects.  The  Consti 
tution  does  not  undertake  the  task  of 
making  such  exact  definitions.  In  con 
ferring  powers,  it  proceeds  by  the  way 
of  enumeration,  stating  the  powers  con 
ferred,  one  after  another,  in  few  words ; 
and  where  the  power  is  general  or  com 
plex  in  its  nature,  the  extent  of  the 
grant  must  necessarily  be  judged  of,  and 
limited,  by  its  object,  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  power. 

Few  things  are  better  known  than  the 
immediate  causes  which  led  to  the  adop 
tion  of  the  present  Constitution;  and 
there  is  nothing,  as  I  think,  clearer,  than 
that  the  prevailing  motive  was  to  regu 
late  commerce ;  to  rescue  it  from  the  em 
barrassing  and  destructive  consequences 
resulting  from  the  legislation  of  so  many 
different  States,  and  to  place  it  under 
the  protection  of  a  uniform  law.  The 
great  objects  were  commerce  and  reve 
nue  ;  and  they  were  objects  indissolubly 
connected.  By  the  Confederation,  divers 
restrictions  had  been  imposed  on  the 
States;  but  these  had  not  been  found 
sufficient.  No  State,  it  is  true,  could 
send  or  receive  an  embassy;  nor  make 
any  treaty ;  nor  enter  into  any  compact 
with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign 
power;  nor  lay  duties  interfering  with 
treaties  which  had  been  entered  into  by 
Congress.  But  all  these  were  found  to 
be  far  short  of  what  the  actual  condition 
of  the  country  required.  The  States 
could  still,  each  for  itself,  regulate 
commerce,  and  the  consequence  was  a 
perpetual  jarring  and  hostility  of  com 
mercial  regulation. 

In  the  history  of  the  times,  it  is  ac 
cordingly  found,  that  the  great  topic, 
urged  on  all  occasions,  as  showing  the 
necessity  of  a  new  and  different  govern 
ment,  was  the  state  of  trade  and  com 
merce.  To  benefit  and  improve  these 
was  a  great  object  in  itself ;  and  it  be 
came  greater  when  it  was  regarded  as  the 
only  means  of  enabling  the  country  to 
pay  the  public  debt,  and  to  do  justice  to 


THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN. 


115 


those  who  had  most  effectually  labored 
for  its  independence.  The  leading  state 
papers  of  the  time  are  full  of  this  topic. 
The  New  Jersey  resolutions l  complain 
that  the  regulation  of  trade  was  in  the 
power  of  the  several  States,  within  their 
separate  jurisdiction,  to  such  a  degree 
as  to  involve  many  difficulties  and  em 
barrassments  ;  and  they  express  an  ear 
nest  opinion,  that  the  sole  and  exclusive 
power  of  regulating  trade  with  foreign 
states  ought  to  be  in  Congress.  Mr. 
Witherspoon's  motion  in  Congress,  in 
1781,  is  of  the  same  general  character; 
and  the  report  of  a  committee  of  that 
body,  in  1785,  is  still  more  emphatic. 
It  declares  that  Congress  ought  to  pos 
sess  the  sole  and  exclusive  power  of 
regulating  trade,  as  well  with  foreign 
nations  as  between  the  States.2  The 
resolutions  of  Virginia,  in  January, 
1786,  which  were  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  Convention,  put  forth  this  same 
great  object.  Indeed,  it  is  the  only  ob 
ject  stated  in  those  resolutions.  There 
is  not  another  idea  in  the  whole  docu 
ment.  The  sole  purpose  for  which  the 
delegates  assembled  at  Annapolis  was  to 
devise  means  for  the  uniform  regulation 
of  trade.  They  found  no  means  but  in 
a  general  government;  and  they  recom 
mended  a  convention  to  accomplish  that 
purpose.  Over  whatever  other  interests 
of  the  country  this  government  may 
diffuse  its  benefits  and  its  blessings,  it 
will  always  be  true,  as  matter  of  histor 
ical  fact,  that  it  had  its  immediate  origin 
in  the  necessities  of  commerce ;  and  for 
its  immediate  object,  the  relief  of  those 
necessities,  by  removing  their  causes, 
and  by  establishing  a  uniform  and  steady 
system.  It  will  be  easy  to  show,  by 
reference  to  the  discussions  in  the  sev 
eral  State  conventions,  the  prevalence  of 
the  same  general  topics ;  and  if  any  one 
would  look  to  the  proceedings  of  several 
of  the  States,  especially  to  those  of 
Massachusetts  and  Ne\v  York,  he  would 
see  very  plainly,  by  the  recorded  lists 
of  votes,  that  wherever  this  commer 
cial  necessity  was  most  strongly  felt, 
there  the  proposed  new  Constitution  had 

1  1  Laws  U.  S.,  p.  28,  Bioren  and  Duane's  ed. 

2  1  Laws  U.  S.,  p.  50. 


most  friends.  In  the  New  York  con 
vention,  the  argument  arising  from 
this  consideration  was  strongly  pressed, 
by  the  distinguished  person s  whose 
name  is  connected  with  the  present  ques 
tion. 

We  do  not  find,  in  the  history  of  the 
formation  and  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  that  any  man  speaks  of  a  general 
concurrent  power,  in  the  regulation  of 
foreign  and  domestic  trade,  as  still  re 
siding  in  the  States.  The  very  object 
intended,  more  than  any  other,  was  to 
take  away  such  power.  If  it  had  not  so 
provided,  the  Constitution  wTould  not 
have  been  worth  accepting. 

I  contend,  therefore,  that  the  people 
intended,  in  establishing  the  Constitu 
tion,  to  transfer  from  the  several  States 
to  a  general  government  those  high  and 
important  powers  over  commerce,  which, 
in  their  exercise,  were  to  maintain  a 
uniform  and  general  system.  From  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  these  powers 
must  be  exclusive;  that  is,  the  higher 
branches  of  commercial  regulation  must 
be  exclusively  committed  to  a  single 
hand.  What  is  it  that  is  to  be  regu 
lated?  Not  the  commerce  of  the  several 
States,  respectively,  but  the  commerce 
of  the  United  States.  Henceforth,  the 
commerce  of  the  States  was  to  be  a  unit  : 
and  the  system  by  which  it  was  to  exist 
and  be  governed  must  necessarily  be 
complete,  entire,  and  uniform.  Its  char 
acter  was  to  be  described  in  the  flag 
which  waved  over  it,  E  PLURIBUS  UNUM. 
Now,  how  could  individual  States  assert 
a  right  of  concurrent  legislation,  in  a 
case  of  this  sort,  without  manifest  en 
croachment  and  confusion?  It  should 
be  repeated,  that  the  words  used  in  the 
Constitution,  "to  regulate  commerce," 
are  so  very  general  and  extensive,  that 
they  may  be  construed  to  cover  a  vast 
field  of  legislation,  part  of  which  has 
always  been  occupied  by  State  laws ;  and 
therefore  the  words  must  have  a  reason 
able  construction,  and  the  power  should 
be  considered  as  exclusively  vested  in 
Congress  so  far,  and  so  far  only,  as  the 
nature  of  the  power  requires.  And  I 
insist,  that  the  nature  of  the  case,  and 
3  Chancellor  Livingston. 


116 


THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN. 


of  the  power,  did  imperiously  require, 
that  such  important  authority  as  that  of 
granting  monopolies  of  trade  and  navi 
gation  should  not  be  considered  as  still 
retained  by  the  States. 

It  is  apparent  from  the  prohibitions 
on  the  power  of  the  States,  that  the 
general  concurrent  power  was  not  sup 
posed  to  be  left  with  them.  And  the 
exception  out  of  these  prohibitions  of 
the  inspection  laws  proves  this  still 
more  clearly.  Which  most  concerns 
the  commerce  of  this  country,  that  New 
York  and  Virginia  should  have  an  un 
controlled  power  to  establish  their  in 
spection  of  flour  and  tobacco,  or  that 
they  should  have  an  uncontrolled  power 
of  granting  either  a  monopoly  of  trade 
in  their  own  ports,  or  a  monopoly  of 
navigation  over  all  the  waters  leading  to 
those  ports?  Yet  the  argument  on  the 
other  side  must  be,  that,  although  the 
Constitution  has  sedulously  guarded  and 
limited  the  first  of  these  powers,  it  has 
left  the  last  wholly  unlimited  and  un 
controlled. 

But  although  much  has  been  said,  in 
the  discussion  on  former  occasions,  about 
this  supposed  concurrent  power  in  the 
States,  I  find  great  difficulty  in  under 
standing  what  is  meant  by  it.  It  is 
generally  qualified  by  saying,  that  it  is 
a  power  by  which  the  States  could  pass 
laws  on  subjects  of  commercial  regula 
tion,  which  would  be  valid  until  Con 
gress  should  pass  other  laws  controlling 
them,  or  inconsistent  with  them,  and 
that  then  the  State  laws  must  yield. 
What  sort  of  concurrent  powers  are 
these,  which  cannot  exist  together?  In 
deed,  the  very  reading  of  the  clause  in 
the  Constitution  must  put  to  flight  this 
notion  of  a  general  concurrent  power. 
The  Constitution  was  formed  for  all  the 
States ;  and  Congress  was  to  have  power 
to  regulate  commerce.  Now,  what  is 
the  import  of  this,  but  that  Congress  is 
to  give  the  rule,  to  establish  the  system, 
to  exercise  the  control  over  the  subject? 
And  can  more  than  one  power,  in  cases 
of  this  sort,  give  the  rule,  establish  the 
system,  or  exercise  the  control?  As  it 
is  not  contended  that  the  power  of  Con 
gress  is  to  be  exercised  by  a  supervision 


of  State  legislation,  and  as  it  is  clear 
that  Congress  is  to  give  the  general  rule, 
I  contend  that  this  power  of  giving  the 
general ^rule  is  transferred,  by  the  Con 
stitution,  from  the  States  to  Congress, 
to  be  exercised  as  that  body  may  see  fit ; 
and  consequently,  that  all  those  high 
exercises  of  power,  which  might  be 
considered  as  giving  the  rule,  or  estab 
lishing  the  system,  in  regard  to  great 
commercial  interests,  are  necessarily  left 
with  Congress  alone.  Of  this  character 
I  consider  monopolies  of  trade  or  navi 
gation  ;  embargoes ;  the  system  of  navi 
gation  laws;  the  countervailing  laws,  as 
against  foreign  states;  arid  other  im 
portant  enactments  respecting  our  con 
nection  with  such  states.  It  appears  to 
me  a  most  reasonable  construction  to 
say,  that  in  these  respects  the  power  of 
Congress  is  exclusive,  from  the  nature 
of  the  power.  If  it  be  not  so,  where  is 
the  limit,  or  who  shall  fix  a  boundary 
for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
States?  Can  a  State  grant  a  monopoly 
of  trade?  Can  New  York  shut  her 
ports  to  all  but  her  own  citizens?  Can 
she  refuse  admission  to  ships  of  particu 
lar  nations?  The  argument  on  the  other 
side  is,  and  must  be,  that  she  might  do 
all  these  things,  until  Congress  should 
revoke  her  enactments.  And  this  is 
called  concurrent  legislation !  What  con 
fusion  such  notions  lead  to  is  obvious 
enough.  A  power  in  the  States  to  do 
any  thing,  and  every  thing,  in  regard  to 
commerce,  till  Congress  shall  undo  it, 
would  suppose  a  state  of  things  at  least 
as  bad  as  that  which  existed  before  the 
present  Constitution.  It  is  the  true  wis 
dom  of  these  governments  to  keep  their 
action  as  distinct  as  possible.  The 
general  government  should  not  seek  to 
operate  where  the  States  can  operate 
with  more  advantage  to  the  community; 
nor  should  the  States  encroach  on 
ground  which  the  public  good,  as  well 
as  the  Constitution,  refers  to  the  exclu 
sive  control  of  Congress. 

If  the  present  state  of  things,  these 
laws  of  New  York,  the  laws  of  Con 
necticut,  and  the  laws  of  New  Jersey, 
had  been  all  presented,  in  the  conven 
tion  of  New  York,  to  the  eminent  per- 


THE   CASE   OF   GIBBONS  AND   OGDEN. 


117 


son  whose  name  is  on  this  record,  and 
who  acted  on  that  occasion  so  important 
apart;  if  he  had  been  told,  that,  after 
all  he  had  said  in  favor  of  the  new  gov 
ernment,  and  of  its  salutary  eifects  on 
commercial  regulations,  the  time  would 
yet  come  when  the  North  River  would 
be  shut  up  by  a  monopoly  from  New 
York,  the  Sound  interdicted  by  a  penal 
law  of  Connecticut,  reprisals  authorized 
by  New  Jersey  against  citizens  of  New 
York,  and  when  one  could  not  cross  a 
ferry  without  transshipment,  does  any 
one  suppose  he  would  have  admitted  all 
this  as  compatible  with  the  government 
which  he  was  recommending? 

This  doctrine  of  a  general  concurrent 
power  in  the  States  is  insidious  and 
dangerous.  If  it  be  admitted,  no  one 
can  say  where  it  will  stop.  The  States 
may  legislate,  it  is  said,  wherever  Con 
gress  has  not  made  a  plenary  exercise  of 
its  power.  But  who  is  to  judge  whether 
Congress  has  made  this  plenary  exercise 
of  power?  Congress  has  acted  on  this 
power;  it  has  done  all  that  it  deemed 
wise;  and  are  the  States  now  to  do 
whatever  Congress  has  left  undone? 
Congress  makes  such  rules  as,  in  its 
judgment,  the  case  requires ;  and  those 
rules,  whatever  they  are,  constitute  the 
system. 

All  useful  regulation  does  not  consist 
in  restraint;  and  that  which  Congress 
sees  fit  to  leave  free  is  a  part  of  its  regu 
lation,  as  much  as  the  rest. 

The  practice  under  the  Constitution 
sufficiently  evinces,  that  this  portion  of 
the  commercial  power  is  exclusive  in 
Congress.  When,  before  this  instance, 
have  the  States  granted  monopolies? 
When,  until  now,  have  they  interfered 
with  the  navigation  of  the  country? 
The  pilot  laws,  the  health  laws,  or  quar 
antine  laws,  and  various  regulations  of 
that  class,  which  have  been  recognized 
by  Congress,  are  no  arguments  to  prove, 
even  if  they  are  to  be  called  commercial 
regulations  (which  they  are  not),  that 
other  regulations,  more  directly  and 
strictly  commercial,  are  not  solely  with 
in  the  power  of  Congress.  There  is  a 
singular  fallacy,  as  I  venture  to  think, 
in  the  argument  of  very  learned  and 


most  respectable  persons  on  this  sub 
ject.  That  argument  alleges,  that  the 
States  have  a  concurrent  power  with 
Congress  of  regulating  commerce;  and 
the  proof  of  this  position  is,  that  the 
States  have,  without  any  question  of  their 
right,  passed  acts  respecting  turnpike- 
roads,  toll-bridges,  and  ferries.  These 
are  declared  to  be  acts  of  commercial 
regulation,  affecting  not  only  the  in 
terior  commerce  of  the  State  itself,  but 
also  commerce  between  different  States. 
Therefore,  as  all  these  are  commercial 
regulations,  and  are  yet  acknowledged 
to  be  rightfully  established  by  the  States, 
it  follows,  as  is  supposed,  that  the  States 
must  have  a  concurrent  power  to  regulate 
commerce. 

Now,  what  is  the  inevitable  conse 
quence  of  this  mode  of  reasoning? 
Does  it  not  admit  the  power  of  Con 
gress,  at  once,  upon  all  these  minor  ob 
jects  of  legislation?  If  all  these  be 
regulations  of  commerce,  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  then  cer 
tainly  Congress,  having  a  concurrent 
power  to  regulate  commerce,  may  estab 
lish  ferries,  turnpike-roads,  and  bridges, 
and  provide  for  all  this  detail  of  interior 
legislation.  To  sustain  the  interference 
of  the  State  in  a  high  concern  of  mari 
time  commerce,  the  argument  adopts  a 
principle  which  acknowledges  the  right 
of  Congress  over  a  vast  scope  of  internal 
legislation,  which  no  one  has  heretofore 
supposed  to  be  within  its  powers.  But 
this  is  not  all ;  for  it  is  admitted  that, 
when  Congress  and  the  States  have 
power  to  legislate  over  the  same  subject, 
the  power  of  Congress,  when  exercised, 
controls  or  extinguishes  the  State  power ; 
and  therefore  the  consequence  would 
seem  to  follow,  from  the  argument,  that 
all  State  legislation  over  such  subjects 
as  have  been  mentioned  is,  at  all  times, 
liable  to  the  superior  power  of  Congress ; 
a  consequence  which  no  one  would  ad 
mit  for  a  moment.  The  truth  is,  in  my 
judgment,  that  all  these  things  are,  in 
their  general  character,  rather  regula 
tions  of  police  than  of  commerce,  in 
the  constitutional  understanding  of  that 
term.  A  road,  indeed,  may  be  a  matter 
of  great  commercial  concern.  In  many 


118 


THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN. 


cases  it  is  so;  and  when  it  is  so,  there  is 
no  doubt  of  the  power  of  Congress  to 
make  it.  But,  generally  speaking,  roads, 
and  bridges,  and  ferries,  though  of  course 
they  affect  commerce  and  intercourse,  do 
not  possess  such  importance  and  eleva 
tion  as  to  be  deemed  commercial  regula 
tions.  A  reasonable  construction  must 
be  given  to  the  Constitution ;  and  such 
construction  is  as  necessary  to  the  just 
power  of  the  States,  as  to  the  authority 
of  Congress.  Quarantine  laws,  for  ex 
ample,  may  be  considered  as  affecting 
commerce;  yet  they  are,  in  their  nature, 
health  laws.  In  England,  we  speak  of 
the  power  of  regulating  commerce  as  in 
Parliament,  or  the  king,  as  arbiter  of 
commerce ;  yet  the  city  of  London  enacts 
health  laws.  Would  any  one  infer  from 
that  circumstance,  that  the  city  of  Lon 
don  had  concurrent  power  with  Parlia 
ment  or  the  crown  to  regulate  commerce? 
or  that  it  might  grant  a  monopoly  of 
the  navigation  of  the  Thames?  While 
a  health  law  is  reasonable,  it  is  a  health 
law;  but  if,  under  color  of  it,  enact 
ments  should  be  made  for  other  pur 
poses,  such  enactments  might  be  void. 

In  the  discussion  in  the  New  York 
courts,  no  small  reliance  was  placed  on 
the  law  of  that  State  prohibiting  the 
importation  of  slaves,  as  an  example 
of  a  commercial  regulation  enacted  by 
State  authority.  That  law  may  or  may 
not  be  constitutional  and  valid.  It 
has  been  referred  to  generally,  but  its 
particular  provisions  have  not  been 
stated.  When  they  are  more  clearly 
seen,  its  character  may  be  better  deter 
mined. 

It  might  further  be  argued,  that  the 
power  of  Congress  over  these  high 
branches  of  commerce  is  exclusive, 
from  the  consideration  that  Congress 
possesses  an  exclusive  admiralty  juris 
diction.  That  it  does  possess  such 
exclusive  jurisdiction  will  hardly  be 
contested.  No  State  pretends  to  exer 
cise  any  jurisdiction  of  that  kind.  The 
States  abolished  their  courts  of  admi 
ralty,  when  the  Constitution  went  into 
operation.  Over  these  waters,  there 
fore,  or  at  least  some  of  them,  which 
are  the  subject  of  this  monopoly,  New 


York  has  no  jurisdiction  whatever. 
They  are  a  part  of  the  high  seas,  and 
not  within  the  body  of  any  county. 
The  authorities  of  that  State  could  not 
punish  fbr  a  murder,  committed  on 
board  one  of  these  boats,  in  some  places 
within  the  range  of  this  exclusive  grant. 
This  restraining  of  the  States  from  all 
jurisdiction  out  of  the  body  of  their  own 
counties,  shows  plainly  enough  that 
navigation  on  the  high  seas  was  under 
stood  to  be'  a  matter  to  be  regulated 
only  by  Congress.  It  is  not  unreason 
able  to  SKV,  that  what  are  called  the 
waters  of  New  York  are,  for  purposes 
of  navigation  arid  commercial  regula 
tion,  the  waters  of  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  cession,  indeed,  of  the 
waters  themselves,  but  their  use  for 
those  purposes  seems  to  be  intrusted  to 
the  exclusive  power  of  Congress.  Sev 
eral  States  have  enacted  laws  which 
would  appear  to  imply  their  conviction 
of  the  power  of  Congress  over  navigable 
waters  to  a  greater  extent. 

If  there  be  a  concurrent  power  of 
regulating  commerce  on  the  high  seas, 
there  must  be  a  concurrent  admiralty 
jurisdiction,  and  a  concurrent  control  of 
the  waters.  It  is  a  common  principle, 
that  arms  of  the  sea,  including  naviga 
ble  rivers,  belong  to  the  sovereign,  so 
far  as  navigation  is  concerned.  Their 
use  is  navigation.  The  United  States 
possess  the  general  power  over  naviga 
tion,  and,  of  course,  ought  to  control,  in 
general,  the  use  of  navigable  waters.  If 
it  be  admitted  that,  for  purposes  of  trade 
arid  navigation,  the  North  River  and  its 
bay  are  the  river  and  bay  of  New  York, 
and  the  Chesapeake  the  bay  of  Vir 
ginia,  very  great  inconveniences  and 
much  confusion  might  be  the  result. 

It  may  now  be  well  to  take  a  nearer 
view  of  these  laws,  to  see  more  exactly 
what  their  provisions  are,  what  conse 
quences  have  followed  from  them,  and 
what  would  and  might  follow  from  other 
similar  laws. 

The  first  grant  to  John  Fitch  gave 
him  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of 
making,  employing,  and  navigating  all 
boats  impelled  by  fire  or  steam,  "  in  all 
creeks,  rivers,  bays,  and  waters  within 


THE   CASE   OF   GIBBONS   AND   OGDEN. 


119 


the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
State."  Any  other  person  navigating 
such  boat  was  to  forfeit  it,  and  to  pay 
a  penalty  of  a  hundred  pounds.  The 
subsequent  acts  repeal  this,  and  grant 
similar  privileges  to  Livingston  and 
Fulton;  and  the  act  of  1811  provides 
the  extraordinary  and  summary  remedy 
which  has  been  already  stated.  The 
river,  the  bay,  and  the  marine  league 
along  the  shore,  are  all  within  the  scope 
of  this  grant.  Any  vessel,  therefore,  of 
this  description,  coming  into  any  of 
those  waters,  without  a  license,  whether 
from  another  State  or  from  abroad, 
whether  it  be  a  public  or  private  vessel, 
is  instantly  forfeited  to  the  grantees  of 
the  monopoly. 

Now  it  must  be  remembered  that  this 
grant  is  made  as  an  exercise  of  sov 
ereign  political  power.  It  is  not  an  in 
spection  law,  nor  a  health  law,  nor 
passed  by  any  derivative  authority ;  it  is 
professedly  an  act  of  sovereign  power. 
Of  course,  there  is  no  limit  to  the 
power,  to  be  derived  from  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  exercised.  If  exercised 
for  one  purpose,  it  may  be  also  for  an 
other.  No  one  can  inquire  into  the 
motives  which  influence  sovereign  au 
thority.  It  is  enough  that  such  power 
manifests  its  will.  The  motive  alleged 
in  this  case  is,  to  remunerate  the  gran 
tees  for  a  benefit  conferred  by  them  on 
the  public.  But  there  is  no  necessary 
connection  between  that  benefit  and 
this  mode  of  rewarding  it;  and  if  the 
State  could  grant  this  monopoly  for 
that  purpose,  it  could  also  grant  it  for 
any  other  purpose.  It  could  make  the 
grant  for  money;  and  so  make  the  mo 
nopoly  of  navigation  over  those  waters 
a  direct  source  of  revenue.  When  this 
monopoly  shall  expire,  in  1838,  the 
State  may  continue  it,  for  any  pecuni 
ary  consideration  which  the  holders 
may  see  fit  to  offer,  and  the  State  to 
receive. 

If  the  State  may  grant  this  monopoly, 
it  may  also  grant  another,  for  other 
descriptions  of  vessels;  for  instance,  for 
all  sloops. 

If  it  can  grant  these  exclusive  privi 
leges  to  a  few,  it  may  grant  them  to 


many;  that  is,  it  may  grant  them  to  all 
its  own  citizens,  to  the  exclusion  of 
everybody  else. 

But  the  waters  of  New  York  are  no 
more  the  subject  of  exclusive  grants  by 
that  State,  than  the  waters  of  other 
States  are  subjects  of  such  grants  by 
those  other  States.  Virginia  may  well 
exercise,  over  the  entrance  of  the  Ches 
apeake,  all  the  power  that  New  York 
can  exercise  over  the  bay  of  New  York, 
and  the  waters  on  her  shores.  The 
Chesapeake,  therefore,  upon  the  prin 
ciple  of  these  laws,  may  be  the  subject 
of  State  monopoly ;  and  so  may  the  bay 
of  Massachusetts.  But  this  is  not  all. 
It  requires  no  greater  power  to  grant  a 
monopoly  of  trade,  than  a  monopoly  of 
navigation.  Of  course,  New  York,  if 
these  acts  can  be  maintained,  may  give 
an  exclusive  right  of  entry  of  vessels 
into  her  ports;  and  the  other  States 
may  do  the  same.  These  are  not  ex 
treme  cases.  We  have  only  to  suppose 
that  other  States  should  do  what  New 
York  has  already  done,  and  that  the 
power  should  be  carried  to  its  full 
extent. 

To  all  this,  no  answer  is  to  be  given 
but  one,  that  the  concurrent  power  of 
the  States,  concurrent  though  it  be,  is 
yet  subordinate  to  the  legislation  of 
Congress;  and  that  therefore  Congress 
may,  whenever  it  pleases,  annul  the 
State  legislation;  but  until  it  does  so 
annul  it,  the  State  legislation  is  valid 
and  effectual.  What  is  there  to  recom 
mend  a  construction  which  leads  to  a 
result  like  this?  Here  would  be  a  per 
petual  hostility;  one  legislature  enact 
ing  laws,  till  another  legislature  should 
repeal  them;  one  sovereign  power  giv 
ing  the  rule,  till  another  sovereign 
power  should  abrogate  it;  and  all  this 
under  the  idea  of  concurrent  legislation ! 

But,  further,  under  this  concurrent 
power,  the  State  does  that  which  Con 
gress  cannot  do;  that  is,  it  gives  prefer 
ences  to  the  citizens  of  some  States  over 
those  of  others.  I  do  not  mean  here 
the  advantages  conferred  by  the  grant 
on  the  grantees;  but  the  disadvantages 
to  which  it  subjects  all  the  other  citi 
zens  of  New  York.  To  impose  an  ex- 


120 


THE   CASE  OF   GIBBONS   AND   OGDEN. 


traordinary  tax  on  steam  navigation 
visiting  the  ports  of  New  York,  and 
leaving  it  free  everywhere  else,  is  giv 
ing  a  preference  to  the  citizens  of  other 
States  over  those  of  New  York.  This 
Congress  could  not  do;  and  yet  the 
State  does  it;  so  that  this  power,  at 
first  subordinate,  then  concurrent,  now 
becomes  paramount. 

The  people  of  New  York  have  a  right 
to  be  protected  against  this  monopoly. 
It  is  one  of  the  objects  for  which  they 
agreed  to  this  Constitution,  that  they 
should  stand  on  an  equality  in  commer 
cial  regulations ;  and  if  the  government 
should  not  insure  them  that,  the  prom 
ises  made  to  them  in  its  behalf  would 
not  be  performed. 

I  contend,  therefore,  in  conclusion  on 
this  point,  that  the  power  of  Congress 
over  these  high  branches  of  commercial 
regulation  is  shown  to  be  exclusive,  by 
considering  what  was  wished  and  in 
tended  to  be  done,  when  the  convention 
for  forming  the  Constitution  was  called ; 
by  what  was  understood,  in  the  State 
conventions,  to  have  been  accomplished 
by  the  instrument;  by  the  prohibitions 
on  the  States,  and  the  express  excep 
tion  relative  to  inspection  laws ;  by  the 
nature  of  the  power  itself ;  by  the  terms 
used,  as  connected  with  the  nature  of 
the  power;  by  the  subsequent  under 
standing  and  practice,  both  of  Congress 
and  the  States;  by  the  grant  of  ex 
clusive  admiralty  jurisdiction  to  the 
federal  government;  by  the  manifest 
danger  of  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  the 
ruinous  consequences  to  which  it  di 
rectly  leads. 

Little  is  now  required  to  be  said,  to 
prove  that  this  exclusive  grant  is  a  law 
regulating  commerce ;  although,  in  some 
of  the  discussions  elsewhere,  it  has  been 
called  a  law  of  police.  If  it  be  not  a 
regulation  of  commerce,  then  it  follows, 
against  the  constant  admission  on  the 
other  side,  that  Congress,  even  by  an 
express  act,  cannot  annul  or  control  it. 
For  if  it  be  not  a  regulation  of  com 
merce.  Congress  has  no  concern  with  it. 
But  the  granting  of  monopolies  of  this 
kind  is  always  referred  to  the  power  over 
commerce.  It  was  as  arbiter  of  com 


merce  that  the  king  formerly  granted 
such  monopolies.1  This  is  a  law  regu 
lating  commerce,  inasmuch  as  it  imposes 
new  conditions  and  terms  on  the  coast 
ing  trade,  on  foreign  trade  generally, 
and  on  foreign  trade  as  regulated  by 
treaties;  and  inasmuch  as  it  interferes 
with  the  free  navigation  of  navigable 
waters. 

If,  then,  the  power  of  commercial  reg 
ulation  possessed  by  Congress  be,  in 
regard  to  the  great  branches  of  it,  .ex 
clusive  ;  and  if  this  grant  of  New  York 
be  a  commercial  regulation,  affecting 
commerce  in  respect  to  these  great 
branches,  then  the  grant  is  void,  whether 
any  case  of  actual  collision  has  happened 
or  not. 

But  I  contend,  in  the  second  place, 
that  whether  the  grant  were  to  be  re 
garded  as  wholly  void  or  not,  it  must,  at 
least,  be  inoperative,  when  the  rights 
claimed  under  it  come  in  collision  with 
other  rights,  enjoyed  and  secured  under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States ;  and  such 
collision,  I  maintain,  clearly  exists  in 
this  case.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  the 
law  of  Congress  is  paramount.  The 
Constitution  has  expressly  provided  for 
that.  So  that  the  only  question  in  this 
part  of  the  case  is,  whether  the  two 
rights  be  inconsistent  with  each  other. 
The  appellant  has  a  right  to  go  from 
New  Jersey  to  New  York,  in  a  vessel 
owned  by  himself,  of  the  proper  legal 
description,  and  enrolled  and  licensed 
according  to  law.  This  right  belongs 
to  him  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  derived  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  no  act  of  the  legis 
lature  of  New  York  can  deprive  him  of 
it,  any  more  than  such  act  could  deprive 
him  of  the  right  of  holding  lands  in  that 
State,  or  of  suing  in  its  courts.  It  ap 
pears  from  the  record,  that  the  boat  in 
question  was  regularly  enrolled  at  Perth 
Amboy,  and  properly  licensed  for  carry 
ing  on  the  coasting  trade.  Under  this 
enrolment,  and  with  this  license,  she  was 
proceeding  to  New  York,  when  she  was 
stopped  by  the  injunction  of  the  Chan- 

i  1  Black.  Com.  273 ;  4  Black.  Com.  160. 


THE  CASE   OF  GIBBONS  AND   OGDEN. 


121 


cellor,  on  the  application  of  the  New 
York  grantees.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  here  is  a  collision,  in  fact;  that 
which  the  appellant  claimed  as  a  right, 
the  respondent  resisted;  and  there  re 
mains  nothing  now  but  to  determine 
whether  the  appellant  had,  as  he  con 
tends,  a  right  to  navigate  these  waters; 
because,  if  he  had  such  right,  it  must 
prevail. 

Now,  this  right  is  expressly  conferred 
by  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  The 
first  section  of  the  act  of  February, 
1793,  ch.  8,  regulating  the  coasting  trade 
and  fisheries,  declares,  that  all  ships  and 
vessels,  enrolled  and  licensed  as  that 
act  provides,  "and  no  others,  shall  be 
deemed  ships  or  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  ships 
or  vessels  employed  in  the  coasting  trade 
or  fisheries."  The  fourth  section  of  the 
same  act  declares,  "  that,  in  order  to  the 
licensing  of  any  ship  or  vessel,  for  car 
rying  on  the  coasting  trade  or  fisheries," 
bond  shall  be  given,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act.  And  the  same 
section  declares,  that,  the  owner  having 
complied  with  the  requisites  of  the  law, 
"  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  collector  to 
grant  a  license  for  carrying  on  the  coast 
ing  trade  " ;  and  the  act  proceeds  to  give 
the  form  and  words  of  the  license,  which 
is,  therefore,  of  course,  to  be  received  as 
a  part  of  the  act;  and  the  words  of  the 
license,  after  the  necessary  recitals,  are, 
"  License  is  hereby  granted  for  the  said 
vessel  to  be  employed  in  carrying  on  the 
coasting  trade. ' '  Words  could  not  make 
this  authority  more  express. 

The  court  below  seems  to  me,  with 
great  deference,  to  have  mistaken  the 
object  and  nature  of  the  license.  It 
seems  to  have  been  of  opinion,  that  the 
license  has  no  other  intent  or  effect  than 
to  ascertain  the  ownership  and  character 
of  the  vessel.  But  this  is  the  peculiar 
office  and  object  of  the  enrolment.  That 
document  ascertains  that  the  regular 
proof  of  ownership  and  character  has 
been  given;  and  the  license  is  given  to 
confer  the  right  to  which  the  party  has 
shown  himself  entitled.  It  is  the  au 
thority  which  the  master  carries  with 
him,  to  prove  his  right  to  navigate  freely 


the  waters  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
carry  on  the  coasting  trade. 

In  some  of  the  discussions  which  have 
been  had  on  this  question,  it  has  been 
said,  that  Congress  has  only  provided  for 
ascertaining  the  ownership  and  property 
of  vessels,  but  has  not  prescribed  to 
what  use  they  may  be  applied.  But  this 
is  an  obvious  error.  The  whole  object 
of  the  act  regulating  the  coasting  trade 
is  to  declare  what  vessels  shall  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  being  employed  in  that  trade. 
To  secure  this  use  to  certain  vessels,  and 
to  deny  it  to  others,  is  precisely  the  pur 
pose  for  which  the  act  was  passed.  The 
error,  or  what  I  humbly  suppose  to  be 
the  error,  in  the  judgment  of  the  court 
below,  consists  in  that  court's  having 
thought,  that,  although  Congress  might 
act,  it  had  not  yet  acted,  in  such  a  way 
as  to  confer  a  right  on  the  appellant; 
whereas,  if  a  right  was  not  given  by  this 
law,  it  never  could  be  given.  No  law 
can  be  more  express.  It  has  been  ad 
mitted,  that,  supposing  there  is  a  pro 
vision  in  the  act  of  Congress,  that  all 
vessels  duly  licensed  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  navigate,  for  the  purpose  of  trade  and 
commerce,  all  the  navigable  harbors, 
bays,  rivers,  and  lakes  within  the  sev 
eral  States,  any  law  of  the  States  creat 
ing  particular  privileges  as  to  any  par 
ticular  class  of  vessels  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  the  only  question  that 
could  arise,  in  such  a  case,  would  be, 
whether  the  law  was  constitutional;  and 
that,  if  that  was  to  be  granted  or  de 
cided,  it  would  certainly,  in  all  courts 
and  places,  overrule  and  set  aside  the 
State  grant. 

Now,  I  do  not  see  that  such  supposed 
case  could  be  distinguished  from  the 
present.  We  show  a  provision  in  an  act 
of  Congress,  that  all  vessels,  duly  li 
censed,  may  carry  on  the  coasting  trade ; 
nobody  doubts  the  constitutional  valid 
ity  of  that  law;  and  we  show  that  this 
vessel  was  duly  licensed  according  to  its 
provisions.  This  is  all  that  is  essential 
in  the  case  supposed.  The  presence  or 
absence  of  a  non  obstante  clause  cannot 
affect  the  extent  or  operation  of  the  act 
of  Congress.  Congress  has  no  power  of 
revoking  State  laws,  as  a  distinct  power. 


122 


THE  CASE  OF  GIBBONS  AND  OGDEN. 


It  legislates  over  subjects ;  and  over  those 
subjects  which  are  within  its  power,  its 
legislation  is  supreme,  and  necessarily 
overrules  all  inconsistent  or  repugnant 
State  legislation.  If  Congress  were  to 
pass  an  act  expressly  revoking  or  annul 
ling,  in  whole  or  in  part,  this  New  York 
grant,  such  an  act  would  be  wholly  use 
less  and  inoperative.  If  the  New  York 
grant  be  opposed  to,  or  inconsistent  with, 
any  constitutional  power  which  Congress 
has  exercised,  then,  so  far  as  the  incom 
patibility  exists,  the  grant  is  nugatory 
and  void,  necessarily,  and  by  reason  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  law  of  Congress. 
But  if  the  grant  be  not  inconsistent  with 
any  exercise  of  the  powers  of  Congress, 
then,  certainly,  Congress  has  no  author 
ity  to  revoke  or  annul  it.  Such  an  act 
of  Congress,  therefore,  would  be  either 
unconstitutional  or  supererogatory.  The 
laws  of  Congress  need  no  non  obstante 
clause.  The  Constitution  makes  them 
supreme,  when  State  laws  come  into 
opposition  to  them.  So  that  in  these 
cases  there  is  no  question  except  this; 
whether  there  be,  or  be  not,  a  repug 
nancy  or  hostility  between  the  law  of 
Congress  and  the  law  of  the  State.  Nor 
is  it  at  all  material,  in  this  view,  whether 
the  law  of  the  State  be  a  law  regulating 
commerce,  or  a  law  of  police,  nor  by 
what  other  name  or  character  it  may  be 
designated.  If  its  provisions  be  incon 
sistent  with  an  act  of  Congress,  they 
are  void,  so  far  as  that  inconsistency  ex 
tends.  The  whole  argument,  therefore, 
is  substantially  and  effectually  given  up, 
when  it  is  admitted  that  Congress  might, 
by  express  terms,  abrogate  the  State 
grant,  or  declare  that  it  should  not  stand 
in  the  way  of  its  own  legislation;  be 
cause  such  express  terms  would  add  noth 
ing  to  the  effect  and  operation  of  an  act 
of  Congress. 

I  contend,  therefore,  upon  the  whole 
of  this  point,  that  a  case  of  actual  col 
lision  has  been  made  out  between  the 
State  grant  and  the  act  of  Congress; 
and  as  the  act  of  Congress  is  entirely 
unexceptionable,  and  clearly  in  pursu 
ance  of  its  constitutional  powers,  the 
State  grant  must  yield. 


There  are  other  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
have  more  or  less  bearing  on  this  ques 
tion.  "  No  State  shall,  without  the 
consent  <W  Congress,  lay  any  duty  of 
tonnage."  Under  color  of  grants  like 
this,  that  prohibition  might  be  wholly 
evaded.  This  grant  authorizes  Messrs. 
Livingston  and  Fulton  to  license  naviga 
tion  in  the  waters  of  New  York.  They, 
of  course,  license  it  on  their  own  terms. 
They  may  require  a  pecuniary  consider 
ation,  ascertained  by  the  tonnage  of  the 
vessel,  or  in  any  other  manner.  Prob 
ably,  in  fact,  they  govern  themselves,  in 
this  respect,  by  the  size  or  tonnage  of  the 
vessels  to  which  they  grant  licenses. 
Now,  what  is  this  but  substantially  a 
tonnage  duty,  under  the  law  of  the 
State?  Or  does  it  make  any  differ 
ence,  whether  the  receipts  go  directly 
into  her  own  treasury,  or  into  the  hands 
of  those  to  whom  she  has  made  the 
grant  ? 

There  is,  lastly,  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution  which  gives  Congress  power 
to  promote  the  progress  of  science  and 
the  useful  arts,  by  securing  to  authors 
and  inventors,  for  a  limited  time,  an  ex 
clusive  right  to  their  own  writings  and 
discoveries.  Congress  has  exercised  this 
power,  and  made  all  the  provisions 
which  it  deemed  useful  or  necessary. 
The  States  may,  indeed,  like  munificent 
individuals,  exercise  their  own  bounty 
towards  authors  and  inventors,  at  their 
own  discretion.  But  to  confer  reward 
by  exclusive  grants,  even  if  it  were  but 
a  part  of  the  use  of  the  writing  or  inven 
tion,  is  not  supposed  to  be  a  power 
properly  to  be  exercised  by  the  States. 
Much  less  can  they,  under  the  notion  of 
conferring  rewards  in  such  cases,  grant 
monopolies,  the  enjoyment  of  which  is 
essentially  incompatible  with  the  exer 
cise  of  rights  possessed  under  the  laws 
of  the  United  States.  I  shall  insist, 
however,  the  less  on  these  points,  as  they 
are  open  to  counsel  who  will  come  after 
me  on  the  same  side,  and  as  I  have  said 
so  much  upon  what  appears  to  me  the 
more  important  and  interesting  part  of 
the  argument. 


THE    BUNKER    HILL    MONUMENT. 


AN  ADDRESS  DELIVERED  AT  THE  LAYING  OF  THE  CORNER-STONE  OF  THE 
BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT  AT  CHARLESTOWN,  MASSACHUSETTS,  ON  THE 
17TH  OF  JUNE,  1825. 


[As  early  as  1776,  some  steps  were  taken 
toward  the  commemoration  of  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  and  the  fall  of  General  War- 
ren,  who  was  buried  upon  the  hill  the  day 
after  the  action.  The  Massachusetts  Lodge 
of  Masons,  over  which  he  presided,  applied 
to  the  provisional  government  of  Massachu 
setts,  for  permission  to  take  un,  his  remains 
and  to  bury  them  with  the  usual  solemni 
ties.  The  Council  granted  this  request,  on 
condition  that  it  should  be  carried  into  ef 
fect  in  such  a  manner  that  the  government 
of  the  Colony  might  have  an  opportunity  to 
erect  a  monument  to  his  memory.  A  funeral 
procession  was  had,  and  a  Eulogy  on  Gen 
eral  Warren  was  delivered  by  Perez  Morton, 
but  no  measures  were  taken  toward  build 
ing  a  monument. 

A  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  on  the  8th  of  April, 
1777,  directing  that  monuments  should  be 
erected  to  the  memory  of  General  Warren, 
in  Boston,  and  of  General  Mercer,  at  Fred- 
ericksburg;  but  this  resolution  has  remained 
to  the  present  time  unexecuted. 

On  the  llth  of  November,  1794,  a  com 
mittee  was  appointed  by  King  Solomon's 
Lodge,  at  Charlestown,1  to  take  measures 
for  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  the  mem 
ory  of  General  Joseph  Warren  at  the  ex 
pense  of  the  Lodge.  This  resolution  was 
promptly  carried  into  effect.  The  land  for 
this  purpose  was  presented  to  the  Lodge  by 
the  Hon.  James  Russell,  of  Charlestown, 
and  it  was  dedicated  with  appropriate  cer 
emonies  on  the  2d  of  December,  1794.  It 
was  a  wooden  pillar  of  the  Tuscan  order, 
eighteen  feet  in  height,  raised  on  a  pedestal 
eight  feet  square,  and  of  an  elevation  of  ten 
feet  from  the  ground.  The  pillar  was  sur 
mounted  by  a  gilt  urn.  An  appropriate  in 
scription  was  placed  on  the  south  side  of  the 
pedestal. 

In  February,  1818,  a  committee  of  the 

1  General  Warren,  at  the  time  of  his  decease, 
was  Grand  Master  of  the  Masonic  Lodges  in 
America. 


legislature  of  Massachusetts  was  appoint 
ed  to  consider  the  expediency  of  building  a 
monument  of  American  marble  of  the  mem 
ory  of  General  Warren,  but  this  proposal 
was  not  carried  into  effect. 

As  the  half-century  from  the  date  of  the 
battle  drew  toward  a  close,  a  stronger  feel 
ing  of  the  duty  of  commemorating  it  began 
to  be  awakened  in  the  community.  Among 
those  who  from  the  first  manifested  the 
greatest  interest  in  the  subject,  was  the 
late  William  Tudor,  Esq.  He  expressed 
the  wish,  in  a  letter  still  preserved,  to  see 
upon  the  battle-ground  "  the  noblest  monu 
ment  in  the  world,"  and  he  was  so  ardent 
and  persevering  in  urging  the  project,  that 
it  has  been  stated  that  he  first  conceived 
the  idea  of  it.  The  steps  taken  in  execu 
tion  of  the  project,  from  the  earliest  private 
conferences  among  the  gentlemen  first  en 
gaged  in  it  to  its  final  completion,  are  accu 
rately  sketched  by  Mr.  Richard  Frothing- 
ham,  Jr.,  in  his  valuable  History  of  the 
Siege  of  Boston.  All  the  material  facts 
contained  in  this  note  are  derived  from  his 
chapter  on  the  Bunker  Hill  Monument. 
After  giving  an  account  of  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  society,  the  measures  adopted 
for  the  collection  of  funds,  and  the  delib 
erations  on  the  form  of  the  monument,  Mr. 
Frothingham  proceeds  as  follows  :  — 

"It  was  at  this  stage  of  the  enterprise  that 
the  directors  proposed  to  lay  the  corner-stone  of 
the  monument,  and  ground  was  broken  (June 
7th)  for  this  purpose.  As  a  mark  of  respect  to 
the  liberality  and  patriotism  of  King  Solomon's 
Lodge,  they  invited  the  Grand  Master  of  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  Massachusetts  to  perform  the 
ceremony.  They  also  invited  General  Lafayette 
to  accompany  the  President  of  the  Association, 
Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  and  assist  in  it. 

"  This  celebration  was  unequalled  in  mafrnifi- 
cence  by  any  thing  of  the  kind  that  had  been 
seen  in  New  England.  The  morning  proved 
propitious.  The  air  was  cool,  the  "sky  was 
clear,  and  timely  showers  the  previous  day  had 
brightened  the  Vesture  of  nature  into  its"  love 
liest  hue.  Delighted  thousands  flocked  into 


124 


THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


Boston  to  bear  a  part  in  the  proceedings,  or  to 
witness  the  spectacle.  At  about  ten  o'clock  a 
procession  moved  from  the  State  House  towards 
Hunker  Hill.  The  military,  in  their  fine  uni 
forms,  formed  the  van.  About  two  hundred 
veterans  of  the  Revolution,  of  whom  forty  were 
survivors  of  I  he  buttle,  rode  in  barouches  next  to 
the  escort.  These  venerable  men,  the  relics  of 
a  past  generation,  with  emaciated  frames,  tot 
tering  limbs,  and  trembling  voices,  constituted 
a  touching  spectacle.  Some  wore,  as  honorable 
decorations,  their  old  lighting  equipments,  and 
some  bore  the  scars  of  still  more  honorable 
wounds.  Glistening  eyes  constituted  their  an 
swer  to  the  enthusiastic  cheers  of  the  grateful 
multitudes  who  lined  their  pathway  and  cheered 
their  progress.  To  this  patriot  band  succeeded 
the  Bunker  Hill  Monument  Association.  Then 
the  Masonic  fraternity,  in  their  splendid  regalia, 
thousands  in  number.  Then  Lafayette,  con 
tinual  Iv  welcomed  by  tokens  of  love  and  grati 
tude,  and  the  invited  guests.  Then  a  long  array 
of  societies,  with  their  various  badges  and  ban 
ners.  It  was  a  splendid  procession,  and  of  such 
length  that  the  front  nearly  reached  Charles- 
town  Bridge  ere  the  rear  had  left  Boston  Com 
mon.  It  proceeded  to  Breed's  Hill,  where  the 
Grand  Master  of  the  Freemasons,  the  President 
of  the  Monument  Association,  and  General  La 
fayette,  performed  the  ceremony  of  laying  the 
corner-stone,  in  the  presence  of  avast  concourse 
of  people." 

The  procession  then  moved  to  a  spacious 
amphitheatre  on  the  northern  declivity  of 
the  hill,  when  the  following  address  was  de 
livered  by  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  presence  of 
as  great  a  multitude  as  was  ever  perhaps 
assembled  within  the  sound  of  a  human 


Tins  uncounted  multitude  before  me 
and  around  me  proves  the  feeling  which 
the  occasion  has  excited.  These  thou 
sands  of  hunlan -faces,  glowing  with  sym 
pathy  and  joy,  and  from  the  impulses  of 
a  common  gratitude  turned  reverently  to 
heaven  in  this  spacious  temple  of  the 
firmament,  proclaim  that  the  day,  the 
place,  and  the  purpose  of  our  assembling 
have  made  a  deep  impression  on  our 
hearts. 

If,  indeed,  there  be  any  thing  in  local 
association  fit  to  affect  the  mind  of  man , 
we  meed  not  strive  to  repress  the  emo 
tions  which  agitate  us  here.  We  are 
among  the  sepulchres  of  our  fathers. 
We  are  on  ground,  distinguished  by 
their  valor,  their  constancy,  and  the 
shedding  of  their  blood.  We  are  here, 
not  to  fix  an  uncertain  date  in  our  an 
nals,  nor  to  draw  into  notice  an  obscure 
and  unknown  spot.  If  our  humble  pur 
pose  had  never  been  conceived,  if  we 
ourselves  had  never  been  born,  the  17th 


of  June,  1775,  would  have  been  a  day 
on  which  all  subsequent  history  would 
have  poured  its  light,  and  the  eminence 
where  we  stand  a  point  of  attraction  to 
the  eyes  of  successive  generations.  But 
we  are  Americans.  We  live  in  what 
may  be  called  the  early  age  of  this  great 
continent;  and  we  know  that  our  pos 
terity,  through  all  time,  are  here  to  en 
joy  and  suffer  the  allotments  of  human 
ity.  We  see  before  us  a  probable  train 
of  great  events ;  we  know  that  our  own 
fortunes  have  been  happily  cast;  and  it 
is  natural,  therefore,  that  we  should  be 
moved  by  the  contemplation  of  occur 
rences  which  have  guided  *our  destiny 
before  many  of  us  were  born ,  and  jet- 
tled  the  condition  in  which  we  should 
pass  that  portion  of  our  existence  which 
God  allows  to  men  on  earth. 

We  do  not  read  even  of  the  discovery 
of  this  continent,  without  feeling  some 
thing  of  a  personal  interest  in  the  event;*/ 
without  being  reminded  how  much  it 
has  affected  our  own  fortunes  and  our 
own  existence.  It  would  be  still  more 
unnatural  for  us,  therefore,  than  for 
others,  to  contemplate  with  unaffected 
minds  that  interesting,  I  may  say  that 
most  touching  and  pathetic  scene,  when 
the  great  discoverer  of  America  stood  on 
the  deck  of  his  shattered  bark,  the  shades 
of  night  falling  on  the  sea,  yet  no  man 
sleeping  ;  tossed  on  the  billows  of  an 
unknown  ocean,  yet  the  stronger  bil 
lows  of  alternate  hope  and  despair  toss 
ing  his  own  troubled  thoughts ;  extend 
ing  forward  his  harassed  frame,  straining 
westward  his  anxious  and  eager  eyes,  till 
Heaven  at  last  granted  him  a  moment  of 
rapture  and  ecstasy,  in  blessing  his  vision, 
with  the  sight  of  the  unknown  world.  J 

Nearer  to  our  times,  more  closely  con 
nected  with  our  fates,  and  therefore  still 
more  interesting  to  our  feelings  and  af 
fections,  is  the  settlement  of  our  own 
country  by  colonists  from  England.  We 
cherish  every  memorial  of  these  worthy 
ancestors  ;  we  celebrate  their  patience 
and  fortitude;  we  admire  their  daring 
enterprise  ;  we  tea«h  our  children  to 
venerate  their  piety;  and  we  are  justly 
proud  of  being  descended  from  men  who 
have  set  the  world  an  example  of  found- 


THE   BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


125 


ing  civil  institutions  on  the  great  and 
united  principles  of  human  freedom  and 
human  knowledge.  To  us,  their  chil 
dren,  the  story  of  their  labors  and  suf 
ferings  can  never  be  without  its  interest. 
We  shall  not  stand  unmoved  on  the  shore 
of  Plymouth,  while  the  sea  continues  to 
wash  it ;  nor  will  our  brethren  in  another 
early  and  ancient  Colony  forget  the  place 
of  its  first  establishment,  till  their  river 
shall  cease  to  flow  by  it.1,  No  vigor  of 
youth,  no  maturity  of  manhood,  will 
lead  the  nation  to  forget  the  spots  where 
its  infancy  was  cradled  and  defended. 

But  the  great  event  in  the  history  of 
the  continent,  which  we  are  now  met 
here  to  commemorate,  that  prodigy  of 
modern  times,  at  once  the  wonder  and 
the  blessing  of  the  world,  is  the  Ameri 
can  lie  volution.  In  a  day  of  extraordi 
nary  prosperity  and  happiness,  of  high 
national  honor,  distinction,  and  power, 
we  are  brought  together,  in  this  place, 
by  our  love  of  country,  by  our  admira 
tion  of  exalted  character,  by  our  grati 
tude  for  signal  services  and  patriotic 
devotion. 

The  Society  whose  organ  I  am  2  was 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  rearing  some 
honorable  and  durable  monument  to  the 
memory  of  the  early  friends  of  Ameri 
can  Independence.  They  have  thought, 
that  for  this  object  no  time  could  be 
more  propitious  than  the  present  pros 
perous  and  peaceful  period  ;  that  no 
place  could  claim  preference  over  this 
memorable  spot;  and  that  no  day  could 
be  more  auspicious  to  the  undertaking, 

1  An  interesting  account  of  the  voyage  of 
the  early  emigrants  to  the  Maryland  Colony, 
and  of  its  settlement,  is  given  in  the  official  re 
port  of  Father  White,  written  probably  within 
the  first  month  after  the  landing  at  St.  Mary's. 
The  original  Latin  manuscript  is  still  preserved 
among  the  archives  of   the  Jesuits   at  Rome. 
The  "  Ark  "  and  the  "  Dove  "  are  remembered 
with  scarcely  less  interest  by  the  descendants 
of  the  sister  colony,  than  is  the  "Mayflower" 
in  New  England,  which  thirteen  years  earlier, 
at  the  same  season  of  the  year,  bore  thither  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers.  rt 

2  Mr.  Webster  was  at  this  time  President  of 
the  Bunker  Hill  Monument  Association,  chosen 
on  the  decease  of  Governor  John  Brooks,  the 
first  President. 


than  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  which 
was  here  fought.  The  foundation  of 
that  monument  we  have  now  laid. 
With  solemnities  suited  to  the  occa 
sion,  with  prayers  to  Almighty  God  for 
his  blessing,  and  in  the  midst  of  this 
cloud  of  witnesses,  we  have  begun  the 
work.  We  trust  it  will  be  prosecuted, 
and  that,  springing  from  a  broad  foun 
dation,  rising  high  in  massive  solidity 
and  unadorned  grandeur,  it  may  remain 
as  long  as  Heaven  permits  the  works  of 
man  to  last,  a  fit  emblem,  both  of  the 
events  in  memory  of  which  it  is  raised, 
and  of  the  gratitude  of  those  who  have 
reared  it. 

1  We  know,  indeed,  that  the  record  of 
illustrious  actions  is  most  safely  depos 
ited  in  the  universal  remembrance  of 
mankind.  We  know,  that  if  we  could 
cause  this  structure  to  ascend,  not  only 
till  it  reached  the  skies,  but  till  it 
pierced  them,  its  broad  surfaces  could 
still  contain  but  part  of  that  which,  in 
an  age  of  knowledge,  hath  already  been 
spread  over  the  earth,  and  which  history 
charges  itself  with  making  known  to  all 
future  times.  We  know  that  no  inscrip 
tion  on  entablatures  less  broad  than  the 
earth  itself  can  carry  information  of  the 
events  we  commemorate  where  it  has 
not  already  gone;  and  that  no  structure, 
which  shall  not  outlive  the  duration  of 
letters  and  knowledge  among  men,  can 
prolong  the  memorial.  But  our  object 
is,  by  this  edifice,  to  show  our  own  deep 
sense  of  the  value  and  importance  of  the 
achievements  of  our  ancestors;  and,  by 
presenting  this  work  of  gratitude  to  the 
eye,  to  keep  alive  similar  sentiments, 
and  to  foster  a  constant  regard  for  the 
principles  of  the  Revolution.  Human 
beings  are  composed,  not  of  reason  only, 
but  of  imagination  also,  and  sentiment; 
and  that  is  neither  wasted  nor  misap 
plied  which  is  appropriated  to  the  pur 
pose  of  giving  right  direction  to  senti 
ments,  and  opening  proper  springs  of 
feeling  in  the  heart.  Let  it  not  be  sup 
posed  that  our  object  is  to  perpetuate 
national  hostility,  or  even  to  cherish 
a  mere  military  spirit.  It  is  higher, 
purer,  nobler.  We  consecrate  our  work 
to  the  spirit  of  national  independence, 


126 


THE  BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


and  we  wish  that  the  light  of  peace  may 
rest  upon  it  for  ever.  We  rear  a  memo 
rial  of  our  conviction  of  that  unmeas 
ured  benefit  which  has  been  conferred 
on  our  own  land,  and  of  the  happy  in 
fluences  which  have  been  produced,  by 
the  same  events,  on  the  general  interests 
of  mankind.  We  come,  as  Americans, 
to  mark  a  spot  which  must  for  ever  be 
dear  to  us  and  our  posterity.  We  wish 
that  whosoever,  in  all  coming  time,  shall 
turn  his  eye  hither,  may  behold  that  the 
place  is  not  undistinguished  where  the 
first  great  battle  of  the  Revolution  was 
fought.  We  wish  that  this  structure  may 
proclaim  the  magnitude  and  importance 
of  that  event  to  every  class  and  every 
age.  We  wish  that  infancy  may  learn 
the  purpose  of  its  erection  from  mater 
nal  lips,  and  that  weary  and  withered 
age  may  behold  it,  and  be  solaced  by 
the  recollections  which  it  suggests.  WTe 
wish  that  labor  may  look  up  here,  and 
be  proud,  in  the  midst  of  its  toil.  We 
wish  that,  in  those  days  of  disaster, 
which,  as  they  come  upon  all  nations, 
must  be  expected  to  come  upon  us  also, 
desponding  patriotism  may  turn  its  eyes 
hitherward,  and  be  assured  that  the 
foundations  of  our  national  power  are 
still  strong.  We  wish  that  this  column, 
rising  towards  heaven  among  the  pointed 
spires  of  so  many  temples  dedicated  to 
God,  may  contribute  also  to  produce,  in 
all  minds,  a  pious  feeling  of  dependence 
and  gratitude.  We  wish,  finally,  that 
the  last  object  to  the  sight  of  him  who 
leaves  his  native  shore,  and  the  first  to 
gladden  his  who  revisits  it,  may  be 
something  which  shall  remind  him  of 
the  liberty  and  the'gloryof  his  country. 
Let  it  rise !  let  it  rise,  till  it  meet  the 
sun  in  his  coming ;  let  the  earliest  light 
of  the  morning  gild  it,  andjparting  day 
linger  and  play  on  its  summit. 

We  live  in  a  most  extraordinary  age. 
Events  so  various  and  so  important  that 
they  might  crowd  and  distinguish  cen 
turies  are,  in  our  times,  compressed 
within  the  compass  of  a  single  life. 
When  has  it  happened  that  history  has 
had  so  much  to  record,  in  the  same  term 
of  years,  as  since  the  17th  of  June,  1775? 


Our  own  Revolution,  which,  under  other 
circumstances,  might  itself  have  been 
expected  to  occasion  a  war  of  half  a  cen 
tury,  has  been  achieved;  twenty-four 
sovereign*and  independent  States  erect 
ed;  and  a  general  government  estab 
lished  over  them,  so  safe,  so  wise,  so  free, 
so  practical,  that  we  might  well  wonder 
its  establishment  should  have  been  ac 
complished  so  soon,  were  it  not  far  the 
greater  wonder  that  it  should  have  been 
established  at  all.  Two  or  three  mil 
lions  of  people  have  been  augmented  to 
twelve,  the  great  forests  of  the  West 
prostrated  beneath  the  arm  of  success 
ful  industry,  and  the  dwellers  on  the 
banks  of  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  be 
come  the  fellow-citizens  and  neighbors 
of  those  who  cultivate  the  hills  of  New 
England.1  We  have  a  commerce,  that 
leaves  no  sea  unexplored;  navies,  which 
take  no  law  from  superior  force ;  reve 
nues,  adequate  to  all  the  exigencies  of 
government,  almost  without  taxation ; 
and  peace  with  all  nations,  founded  on 
equal  rights  and  mutual  respect. 
^Europe,  within  the  same  period,  has 
been  agitated  by  a  mighty  revolution, 
which,  while  it  has  been  felt  in  the  in 
dividual  condition  and  happiness  of  al 
most  every  man,  has  shaken  to  the  cen 
tre  her  political  fabric,  and  dashed 
against  one  another  thrones  which  had 
stood  tranquil  for  ages.  On  this,  our 
continent,  our  own  example  has  been 
followed,  and  colonies  have  sprung  up 
to  be  nations.  Unaccustomed  sounds 
of  .liberty  and  free  government  have 
reached  us  from  beyond  the  track  of  the 
sun ;  and  at  this  moment  the  dominion 
of  European  power  'in  this  continent, 
from  the  place  where  we  stand  to  the 
south  pole,  is  annihilated  for  ever. 
In  the  mean  time,  both  in  Europe  and 

1  That  which  was  spoken  of  figuratively  in 
1825  has,  in  the  lapse  of  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
by  the  introduction  of  railroads  and  telegraphic 
lines,    become   a   reality.     It  is  an  interesting 
circumstance,    that  the  first    railroad    on   the 
Western  Continent  was  constructed  for  the  pur 
pose  of  accelerating  the  erection  of  this  monu 
ment. 

2  See  President  Monroe's  Message  to  Con 
gress  in  1823,  and  Mr.  Webster's  speech  on  the 
Panama  Mission,  in  1826. 


THE   BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


127 


America,  such  has  been  the  general  prog 
ress  of  knowledge,  such  the  improve 
ment  in  legislation,  in  commerce,  in  the 
arts,  in  letters,  and,  above  all,  in  liberal 
ideas  and  the  general  spirit  of  the  age, 
that  the  whole  world  seems  changed. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  that  this  is  but 
a  faint  abstract  of  the  things  which 
have  happened  since  the  day  of  the  bat 
tle  of  Bunker  Hill,  we  are  but  fifty 
years  removed  from  it;  and  we  now 
stand  here  to  enjoy  all  the  blessings  of 
our  own  condition,  and  to  look  abroad 
on  the  brightened  prospects  of  the  world, 
while  we  still  have  among  us  some  of 
those  who  were  active  agents  in  the 
scenes  of  1775,  and  wyho  are  now  here, 
from  every  quarter  of  New  England,  to 
visit  once  more,  and  under  circum 
stances  so  affecting,  I  had  almost  said 
so  overwhelming,  this  renowned  theatre 
of  their  courage  and  patriotism. 


VENERABLE  MEN  !  you  have  come 
down  to  us  from  a  former  generation. 
Heaven  has  bounteously  lengthened  out 
your  lives,  that  you  might  behold  this 
joyous  day.  You  are  now*  where  you 
stood  fifty  years  ago,  this  very  hour, 
with  your  brothers  and  your  neighbors, 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  the  strife  for 
your  country.  Behold,  how  altered ! 
The  same  heavens  are  indeed  over  your 
heads ;  the  same  ocean  rolls  at  your  feet ; 
but  all  else  how  changed  !  You  hear 
now  no  roar  of  hostile  cannon,  you  see 
no  mixed  volumes  of  smoke  and  flame 
rising  from  burning  Charlestown.  •The 
ground  strewed  with  the  dead  and  the 
dying;  the  impetuous  chiirgfi ;  the  .steady 
and  successful  repulse;  the  loud  call  to 
repeated  assault;  the  summoning- of  all 
that  is  manly  to-  repeated  resistance;  a 
thousand  bosoms  freely  and  fearlessly 
bared  in  an  instant'to  whatever  of  terror 
there  may  be  in  war  and  death ;  —  all 
these  you  have  witnessed,  but  you  wit 
ness  them  no  more.  All  is  peace.  The 
heights  of  yonder  metropolis,  its  towers 
and  roofs,  which  you  then  saw  filled 
with  wives  and  children  and  country 
men  in  distress  and  terror,  and  looking 
with  unutterable  emotions  for  the  issue 
of  the  combat,  have  presented  you  to 


day  with  the  sight  of  its  whole  happy 
population,  come  out  to  welcome  and 
greet  you  with  a  universal  jubilee. 
Yonder  proud  ships,  by  a  felicity  of 
position, appropriately  lying  at  the  foot 
of  this  mount,  and  seeming  fondly  to 
cling  around  it,  are  not  means  of  annoy 
ance  to  you,  but  your  country's  own 
means  of  jlistmction  and  defence.1  All 
is  peace ;  and  God  has  granted  you  this 
sight  of  your  country's  happiness,  ere 
you  slumber  in  the  grave.  He  has  al 
lowed  you  to  behold  and  to  partake  the 
reward  of  your  patriotic  toils;  and  he 
has  allowed  us,  your  sons  and  country 
men,  to  meet  you  here,  and  in  the  name 
of  the  present  generation,  in  the  name 
of  your  country,  in  the  name  of  liberty, 
to  thank  you  ! 

But,  alas !  you  are  not  all  here !  Time 
and  the  sword  have  thinned  your  ranks. 
Prescott,  Putnam,  Stark,  Brooks,  Read, 
Pomeroy,  Bridge !  our  eyes  seek  for  you 
in  vain  amid  this  broken  band.  You 
are  gathered  to  your  fathers,  and  live 
only  to  your  country  in  her  grateful  re 
membrance  and  your  own  bright  ex 
ample.  But  let  us  not  too  much  grieve, 
that  you  have  met  the  common  fate  of 
men.  You  lived  at  least  long  enough 
to  know  that  your  work  had  been  nobly 
and  successfully  accomplished.  You 
lived  to  see  your  country's  indepen 
dence  established,  and  to  sheathe  your 
swords  from  war.  On  the  light  of  Lib 
erty  you  saw  arise  the  light  of  Peace, 
like 

"  another  morn, 
Risen  on  mid-noon  "  ; 

and  the  sky  on  which  you  closed  your 
eyes  was  cloudless. 

But  ah !  Him !  the  first  great  martyr  in 
this  great  cause!  Him!  the  premature 
victim  of  his  own  self -devoting  heart! 
Him!  the  head  of  our  civil  councils, 
and  the  destined  leader  of  our  military 
bands,  whom  nothing  brought  hither 
but  the  unquenchable  fire  of  his  own 
spirit!  Him!  cut  off  by  Providence  in 

1  It  is  necessary  to  inform  those  only  who 
are  unacquainted  with  the  localities,  that  the 
United  States  Navy  Yard  at  Charlestown  is 
situated  at  the  base  of  Bunker  Hill. 


128 


THE   BUNKER    HILL  MONUMENT. 


the  hour  of  overwhelming  anxiety  and 
thick  gloom ;  falling  ere  he  saw  the  star 
of  his  country  rise;  pouring  out  his 
generous  blood  like  water,  before  he 
knew  whether  it  would  fertilize  a  land 
of  freedom  or  of  bondage !  —  how  shall 
I  struggle  with  the  emotions  that  stifle 
the  utterance  of  thy  name ! 1  Our  poor 
work  may  perish;  but  thine  shall  en 
dure!  This  monument  may  moulder 
away;  the  solid  ground  it  rests  upon 
may  sink  down  to  a  level  with  the  sea ; 
but  thy  memory  shall  not  fail !  Where 
soever  among  men  a  heart  shall  be 
found  that  beats  to  the  transports  of 
patriotism  and  liberty,  its  aspirations 
shall  be  to  claim  kindred  with  thy 
i  spirit ! 

\  But  the  scene  amidst  which  we  stand 
does  not  permit  us  to  confine  our 
thoughts  or  our  sympathies  to  those 
fearless  spirits  who  hazarded  or  lost 
their  lives  on  this  consecrated  spot. 
We  have  the  happiness  to  rejoice  here 
in  the  presence  of  a  most  worthy  repre 
sentation  of  the  survivors  of  the  whole 
Revolutionary  army. 

VETERANS!  you  are  the  remnant  of 
many  a  well-fought  field.  You  bring 
with  you  marks  of  honor  from  Trenton 
and  Monmouth,  from  Yorktown,  Cam- 
den,  Bennington,  and  Saratoga.  VET 
ERANS  OF  HALF  A  CENTURY!  when  in 
your  youthful  days  you  put  every  thing 
at  hazard  in  your  country's  cause,  good 
as  that  cause  was,  and  sanguine  as 
youth  is,  still  your  fondest  hopes  did 
not  stretch  onward  to  an  hour  like  this ! 
At  a  period  to  which  you  could  not 
reasonably  have  expected  to  arrive,  at  a 
moment  of  national  prosperity  such  as 
you  could  never  have  foreseen,  you  are 
now  met  here  to  enjoy  the  fellowship  of 
old  soldiers,  and  to  receive  the  over 
flowings  of  a  universal  gratitude. 

But  your  agitated  countenances  and 
your  heaving  breasts  inform  me  that 
even  this  is  not  an  unmixed  joy.  I 
perceive  that  a  tumult  of  contending 
feelings  rushes  upon  you.  The  images 
of  the  dead,  as  well  as  the  persons  of 
the  living,  present  themselves  before 

1  See  the  North  American  Review,  Vol. 
XLI.  p.  242. 


you.  The  scene  overwhelms  you,  and 
I  turn  from  it.  May  the  Father  of  all 
mercies  smile  upon  your  declining  years, 
and  bless  them!  And  when  you  shall 
here  hafe  exchanged  your  embraces, 
when  you  shall  once  more  have  pressed 
the  hands  which  have  been  so  often  ex 
tended  to  give  succor  in  adversity,  or 
grasped  in  the  exultation  of  victory, 
then  look  abroad  upon  this  lovely  land 
which  your  young  valor  defended,  and 
mark  the  happiness  with  which  it  is 
filled;  yea,  look  abroad  upon  the  whole 
earth,  and  see  what  a  name  you  have 
contributed  to  give  to  your  country,  and 
what  a  praise  you  have  added  to  free 
dom,  and  then  rejoice  in  the  sympathy 
and  gratitude  which  beam  upon  your 
last  days  from  the  improved  condition 
of  mankind ! 


L 


e  occasion  does  not  require  of  me 
any  particular  account  of  the  battle  of 
the   17th  of  June,    1775,   nor  any  de 
tailed   narrative   of  the    events    which 
immediately   preceded  it.      These    are 
familiarly  known  to  all.     In  the  prog 
ress  of  the  great  and  interesting    con 
troversy,   Massachusetts  and   the   town 
of  Boston  had  become  early  and  marked 
objects  of  the  displeasure  of  the  British 
Parliament.     This  had  been  manifested 
in  the  act  for  altering  the  government 
of  the  Province,   and  in  that  for  shut 
ting  up  the  port  of  Boston.     Nothing 
sheds  more  honor  on  our  early  history, 
and  nothing  better  shows  how  little  the 
feelings  and  sentiments  of  the  Colonies 
were   known   or   regarded  in  England, 
than  the  impression  which  these  meas 
ures  everywhere  produced  in  America. 
It  had  been  anticipated,  that,  while  the 
Colonies  in  general  would  be  terrified 
by  the  severity  of  the  punishment  in 
flicted  on  Massachusetts,  the  other  sea 
ports   would  be   governed   by    a    mere 
spirit  of  gain;  and  that,  as  Boston  was 
now  cut  off  from  all  commerce,  the  un- 
xpected  advantage  which  this  blow  on 
tier  was  calculated  to  confer  on   other 
towns  would  be  greedily  enjoyed.     How 
miserably  such  reasoners  deceived  them 
selves!     How  little  they  knew  of  the 
depth,    and   the   strength,    and  the  in- 


THE   BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


129 


tenseness  of  that  feeling  of  resistance  to 
illegal  acts  of  power,  which  possessed 
the  whole  American  people!  Every 
where  the  unworthy  boon  was  rejected 
with  scorn.  The  fortunate  occasion 
was  seized,  everywhere,  to  show  to  the 
whole  world  that  the  Colonies  were 
swayed  by  no  local  interest,  no  partial 
interest,  no  selfish  interest.  The  temp 
tation  to  profit  by  the  punishment  of 
Boston  was  strongest  to  our  neighbors 
of  Salem.  Yet  Salem  was  precisely  the 
place  where  this  miserable  proffer  was 
spurned,  in  a  tone  of  the  most  lofty 
self-respect  and  the  most  indignant 
patriotism.  "  We  are  deeply  affected," 
said  its  inhabitants,  "with  the  sense  of 
our  public  calamities;  but  the  miseries 
that  are  now  rapidly  hastening  on  our 
brethren  in  the  capital  of  the  Province 
greatly  excite  our  commiseration.  By 
shutting  up  the  port  of  Boston,  some 
imagine  that  the  course  of  trade  might 
be  turned  hither  and  to  our  benefit ;  but 
we  must  be  dead  to  every  idea  of  justice, 
lost  to  all  feelings  of  humanity,  could 
we  indulge  a  thought  to  seize  on  wealth 
and  raise  our  fortunes  on  the  ruin  of 
our  suffering  neighbors."  These  noble 
sentiments  were  not  confined  to  our  im 
mediate  vicinity.  In  that  day  of  gen 
eral  affection  and  brotherhood,  the  blow 
given  to  Boston  smote  on  every  patriotic 
heart  from  one  end  of  the  country  to 
the  other.  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas, 
as  well  as  Connecticut  and  New  Hamp 
shire,  felt  and  proclaimed  the  cause  to 
be  their  own.  The  Continental  Con 
gress,  then  holding  its  first  session  in 
Philadelphia,  expressed  its  sympathy 
for  the  suffering  inhabitants  of  Boston, 
and  addresses  were  received  from  all 
quarters,  assuring  them  that  the  cause 
was  a  common  one,  and  should  be  met 
by  common  efforts  and  common  sacri 
fices.  The  Congress  of  Massachusetts 
responded  to  these  assurances;  and  in 
an  address  to  the  Congress  at  Philadel 
phia,  bearing  the  official  signature,  per 
haps  among  the  last,  of  the  immortal 
Warren,  notwithstanding  the  severity 
of  its  suffering  and  the  magnitude  of 
the  dangers  which  threatened  it,  it  was 
declared,  that  this  Colony  "  is  ready,  at 


all  times,  to  spend  and  to  be  spent  in 
the  cause  of  America. ' ' 

But  the  hour  drew  nigh  which  was  to 
put  professions  to  the  proof,  and  to  de 
termine  whether  the  authors  of  these 
mutual  pledges  were  ready  to  seal  them 
in  blood.  The  tidings  of  Lexington 
and  Concord  had  no  sooner  spread,  than 
it  was  universally  felt  that  the  time  was 
at  last  come  for  action.  A  spirit  per 
vaded  all  ranks,  not  transient,  not  bois 
terous,  but  deep,  solemn,  determined, 

"totamque  infusa  per  artus 
Mens  agitat  molem,  et  magno  se  corpore  miscet." 

War,  on  their  own  soil  and  at  their  own. 
doors,  was,  indeed,  a  strange  work  to 
the  yeomanry  of  New  England;  but 
their  consciences  were  convinced  of  its 
necessity,  their  country  called  them  to 
it,  and  they  did  not  withhold  themselves 
from  the  perilous  trial.  The  ordinary- 
occupations  of  life  were  abandoned; 
the  plough  was  staid  in  the  unfinished 
furrow;  wives  gave  up  their  husbands, 
and  mothers  gave  up  their  sons,  to  the 
battles  of  a  civil  war.  Death  might 
come,  in  honor,  on  the  field;  it  might 
come,  in  disgrace,  on  the  scaffold.  For 
either  and  for  both  they  were  prepared. 
The  sentiment  of  Quincy  was  full  in 
their  hearts.  "  Blandishments,"  said 
that  distinguished  son  of  genius  and 
patriotism,  "will  not  fascinate  us,  nor 
will  threats  of  a  halter  intimidate ;  for, 
under  God,  we  are  determined  that, 
wheresoever,  whensoever,  or  howsoever 
we  shall  be  called  to  make  our  exit,  we 
will  die  free  men." 

The  17th  of  June  saw  the  four  New 
England  Colonies  standing  here,  side  by 
side,  to  triumph  or  to  fall  together;  and 
there  was  with  them  from  that  moment 
to  the  end  of  the  war,  what  I  hope  will 
remain  with  them  for  ever,  one  cause, 
one  country,  one  heart. 

The  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  at 
tended  with  the  most  important  effects 
beyond  its  immediate  results  as  a  mili 
tary  engagement.  It  created  at  once  a 
state  of  open,  public  war.  There  could 
now  be  no  longer  a  question  of  proceed 
ing  against  individuals,  as  guilty  of 
treason  or  rebellion.  That  fearful  crisis 


0 


130 


THE   BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


was  past.  The  appeal  lay  to  the  sword, 
and  the  only  question  was,  whether  the 
spirit  and  the  resources  of  the  people 
would  hold  out,  till  the  object  should 
be  accomplished.  Nor  were  its  general 
consequences  confined  to  our  own  coun 
try.  The  previous  proceedings  of  the 
Colonies,  their  appeals,  resolutions,  and 
addresses,  had  made  their  cause  known  to 
Europe.  Without  boasting,  we  may  say, 
that  in  no  age  or  country  has  the  public 
cause  been  maintained  with  more  force 
of  argument,  more  power  of  illustration, 
or  more  of  that  persuasion  which  ex 
cited  feeling  and  elevated  principle  can 
alone  bestow,  than  the  Revolutionary 
state  papers  exhibit.  These  papers  will 
for  ever  deserve  to  be  studied,  not  only 
for  the  spirit  which  they  breathe,  but 
for  the  ability  with  which  they  were 
written. 

'  To  this  able  vindication  of  their  cause, 
the  Colonies  had  now  added  a  practical 
and  severe  proof  of  their  own  true  de 
votion  to  it,  and  given  evidence  also  of 
the  power  which  they  could  bring  to  its 
support.  All  now  saw,  that,  if  America 
fell,  she  would  not  fall  without  a  strug 
gle.  Men  felt  sympathy  and  regard,  as 
well  as  surprise,  when  they  beheld  these 
infant  states,  remote,  unknpwn,  un 
aided,  encounter  the  power  of  England, 
and,  in  the  first  considerable  battle, 
leave  more  of  their  enemies  dead  on  the 
field,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
combatants,  than  had  been  recently 
known  to  fall  in  the  wars  of  Europe. 

Information  of  these  events,  circu 
lating  throughout  the  world,  at  length 
reached  the  ears  of  one  who  now  hears 
me.1  He  has  not  forgotten  the  emotion 
which  the  fame  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  the 
name  of  Warren,  excited  in  his  youth 
ful  breast. 

,-v.  * 

SIR,  we  are  assembled  to  commemo 
rate  the  establishment  of  great  public 
principles  of  liberty,  and  to  do  honor 

1  Among  the  earliest  of  the  arrangements  for 
the  celebration  of  the  17th  of  June,  1825,  was 
the  invitation  to  General  Lafayette  to  be  pres 
ent  ;  and  he  had  so  timed  his  progress  through 
tlie  other  States  as  to  return  to  Massachusetts 
in  season  for  the  great  occasion. 


to  the  distinguished  dead.  The  occa 
sion  is  too  severe  for  eulogy  of  the  liv 
ing.  But,  Sir,  your  interesting  relation 
to  this  country,  the  peculiar  circum 
stances  *which  surround  you  and  sur 
round  us,  call  on  me  to  express  the 
happiness  which  we  derive  from  your 
presence  and  aid  in  this  solemn  com 
memoration. 

V*  Fortunate,  fortunate  man!  with  what 
measure  of  devotion  will  you  not  thank 
God  for  th«  circumstances  of  your  ex 
traordinary  life!  You  are  connected 
with  both  hemispheres  and  with  two 
generations.  Heaven  saw  fit  to  ordain, 
that  the  electric  spark  of  liberty  should 
be  conducted,  through, you,  from  the 
New  World  to  the  Old;  and  we,  who 
are  now  here  to  perform  this  duty  of 
patriotism,  have  all  of  us  long  ago  re 
ceived  it  in  charge  from  our  fathers  to 
cherish  your  name  and  your  virtues. 
You  will  account  it  an  instance  of  your 
good  fortune,  Sir,  that  you  crossed  the 
seas  to  visit  us  at  a  time  which  enables 
you  to  be  present  at  this  solemnity. 
You  now  behold  the  field,  the  renown 
of  which  reached  you  in  the  heart  of 
France,  and  caused  a  thrill  in  your  ar 
dent  bosom.  You  see  the  lines  of  the 
little  redoubt  thrown  up  by  the  incredi 
ble  diligence  of  Prescott;  defended,  to 
the  last  extremity,  by  his  lion-hearted 
valor;  and  within  which  the  corner 
stone  of  our  monument  has  now  taken 
its  position.  You  see  where  Warren 
fell,  and  where  Parker,  Gardner,  Mc- 
Cleary,  Moore,  and  other  early  patriots, 
fell  with  him.  Those  who  survived  that 
day,  and  whose  lives  have  been  pro 
longed  to  the  present  hour,  are  now 
around  you.  Some  of  them  you  have 
known  in  the  trying  scenes  of  the  war. 
Behold!  they  now  stretch  forth  their 
feeble  arms  to  embrace  you.  Behold! 
they  raise  their  trembling  voices  to  in 
voke  the  blessing  of  God  on  you  and 
yours  for  ever. 

v  Sir,  you  have  assisted  us  in  laying  the 
foundation  of  this  structure.  You  have 
heard  us  rehearse,  with  our  feeble  com 
mendation,  the  names  of  departed  pa 
triots.  Monuments  and  eulogy  belong 
to  the  dead.  We  give  them  this  day  to 


THE    BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


131 


Warren  and  his  associates.  On  other 
occasions  they  have  been  given  to  your 
more  immediate  companions  in  arms, 
to  Washington,  to  Greene,  to  Gates,  to 
Sullivan,  and  to  Lincoln.  We  have 
become  reluctant  to  grant  these,  our 
highest  and  last  honors,  further.  We 
would  gladly  hold  them  yet  back  from 
the  little  remnant  of  that  immortal 
band.  Serus  in  ccelum  redeas.  Illustri 
ous  as  are  your  merits,  yet  far,  O  very 
far  distant  be  the  day,  when  any  inscrip 
tion  shall  bear  your  name,  or  any  tongue 
pronounce  its  eulogy! 

The  leading  reflection  to  which  this 
occasion  seems  to  invite  us,  respects  the 
great  changes  which  have  happened  in 
the  fifty  years  since  the  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill  was  fought.  And  it  peculiarly 
marks  the  character  of  the  present  age, 
that,  in  looking  at  these  changes,  and  in 
estimating  their  effect  on  our  condition, 
we  are  obliged  to  consider,  not  what  has 
been  done  in  our  own  country  only,  but 
in  others  also.  In  these  interesting 
times,  while  nations  are  making  separate 
and  individual  advances  in  improvement, 
they  make,  too,  a  common  progress;  like 
vessels  on  a  common  tide,  propelled  by 
the  gales  at  different  rates,  according  to 
their  several  structure  and  management, 
but  all  moved  forward  by  one  mighty 
current,  strong  enough  to  bear  onward 
whatever  does  not  sink  beneath  it.  * 

A  chief  distinction  of  the  present  day 
is  a  community  of  opinions  and  knowl 
edge  amongst  men  in  different  nations, 
existing  in  a  degree  heretofore  unknown. 
Knowledge  has,  in  our  time,  triumphed,! 
and  is  triumphing,  over  distance,  over! 
difference  of  languages,  over  diversity  * 
of  habits,  over  prejudice,  and  over  big 
otry.  The  civilized  and  Christian  world 
is  fast  learning  the  great  lesson,  that  dif 
ference  of  nation  does  riot  imply  neces 
sary  hostility,  and  that  all  contact  need 
not  be  war.  The  whole  world  is  becom 
ing  a  common  field  for  intellect  to  act 
in.  Energy  of  mind,  genius,  power, 
wheresoever  it  exists,  may  speak  out  in 
any  tongue,  and  the  world  will  hear  it. 
A  great  chord  of  sentiment  and  feeling 
runs  through  two  continents,  and  vi 


brates  over  both.  Every  breeze  wafts 
intelligence  from  country  to  country; 
every  wave  rolls  it;  all  give  it  forth,  and 
all  in  turn  receive  it.  There  is  a  vast 
commerce  of  ideas;  there  are  marts  and 
exchanges  for  intellectual  discoveries, 
and  a  wonderful  fellowship  of  those 
individual  intelligences  which  make  up 
the  mind  and  opinion  of  the  age.  Mind 
is  the  great  lever  of  all  things ;  human 
thought  is  the  process  by  which  human 
ends  are  ultimately  answered;  and  the 
diffusion  of  knowledge,  so  astonishing 
in  the  last  half-century,  has  rendered 
innumerable  minds,  variously  gifted  by 
nature,  competent  to  be  competitors  or 
fellow-workers  on  the  theatre  of  intel 
lectual  operation. 

..  From  these  causes  important  improve 
ments  have  taken  place  in  the  personal 
condition  of  individuals.  Generally 
speaking,  mankind  are  not  only  better 
fed  and  better  clothed,  but  they  are  able 
also  to  enjoy  more  leisure ;  they  possess 
more  refinement  and  more  self-respect. 
A  superior  tone  of  education,  manners, 
and  habits  prevails.  This  remark,  most 
true  in  its  application  to  our  own  coun 
try,  is  also  partly  true  when  applied 
elsewhere.  It  is  proved  by  the  vastly 
augmented  consumption  of  those  articles 
of  manufacture  and  of  commerce  which 
contribute  to  the  comforts  and  the  de 
cencies  of  life ;  an  augmentation  which 
has  far  outrun  the  progress  of  popula 
tion.  And  while  the  unexampled  and 
almost  incredible  use  of  machinery 
would  seem  to  supply  the  place  of 
labor,  labor  still  finds  its  occupation 
/and  its  reward;  so  wisely  has  Provi 
dence  adjusted  men's  wants  and  desires 
to  their  condition  and  their  capacity. 

Any  adequate  survey,  however,  of  the 
progress  made  during  the  last  half-cen 
tury  in  the  polite  and  the  mechanic  arts, 
in  machinery  and  manufactures,  in  com 
merce  and  agriculture,  in  letters  and  in 
science,  would  require  volumes.  I  must 
abstain  wholly  from  these  subjects,  and 
turn  for  a  moment  to  the  contemplation 
of  what  has  been  done  on  the  great 
question  of  politics  and  government. 
This  is  the  master  topic  of  the  age ;  and 
during  the  whole  fifty  years  it  has  in- 


132 


THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


tensely  occupied  the  thoughts  of  men. 
The  nature  of  civil  government,  its 
ends  and  uses,  have  been  canvassed  and 
investigated;  ancient  opinions  attacked 
and  defended;  new  ideas  recommended 
and  resisted,  by  whatever  power  the 
mind  of  man  could  bring  to  the  contro 
versy.  From  the  closet  and  the  public 
halls  the  debate  has  been  transferred  to 
the  field ;  and  the  world  has  been  shaken 
by  wars  of  unexampled  magnitude,  and 
the  greatest  variety  of  fortune.  A  day 
of  peace  has  at  length  succeeded;  and 
now  that  the  strife  has  subsided,  and 
the  smoke  cleared  away,  we  may  begin 
to  see  what  has  actually  been  done,  per 
manently  changing  the  state  and  condi 
tion  of  human  society.  And,  without 
dwelling  on  particular  circumstances,  it 
is  most  apparent,  that,  from  the  before- 
mentioned  causes  of  augmented  knowl 
edge  and  improved  individual  condition, 
a  real,  substantial,  and  important  change 
has  taken  place,  and  is  taking  place, 
highly  favorable,  on  the  whole,  to  hu 
man  liberty  and  human  happiness. 

The  great  wheel  of  political  revolution 
began  to  move  in  America.  Here  its 
rotation  was  guarded,  regular,  and  safe. 
Transferred  to  the  other  continent,  from 
unfortunate  but  natural  causes,  it  re 
ceived  an  irregular  and  violent  impulse ; 
it  whirled  along  with  a  fearful  celerity ; 
till  at  length,  like  the  chariot- wheels  in 
the  races  of  antiquity,  it  took  fire  from 
the  rapidity  of  its  own  motion,  and 
blazed  onward,  spreading  conflagration 
and  terror  around. 

We  learn  from  the  result  of  this  ex 
periment,  how  fortunate  was  our  own 
condition,  and  how  admirably  the  char 
acter  of  our  people  was  calculated  for 
setting  the  great  example  of  popular 
governments.  The  possession  of  power 
did  not  turn  the  heads  of  the  American 
people,  for  they  had  long  been  in  the 
habit  of  exercising  a  great  degree  of 
self-control.  Although  the  paramount 
authority  of  the  parent  state  existed 
over  them,  yet  a  large  field  of  legisla 
tion  had  always  been  open  to  our  Colo 
nial  assemblies.  They  were  accustomed 
to  representative  bodies  and  the  forms 
of  free  government;  they  understood 


the  doctrine  of  the  division  of  power 
among  different  branches,  and  the  neces 
sity  of  checks  on  each.  The  character 
of  our  countrymen,  moreover,  was  sober, 
moral,  and  religious ;  and  there  was  little 
in  the  change  to  shock  their  feelings  of 
justice  and  humanity,  or  even  to  disturb 
an  honest  prejudice.  We  had  no  do 
mestic  throne  to  overturn,  no  privileged 
orders  to  cast  down,  no  violent  changes 
of  property  to  encounter.  In  the  Ameri 
can  Revolution,  no  man  sought  or  wished 
for  more  than  to  defend  and  enjoy  his 
own.  None  hoped  for  plunder  or  for 
spoil.  Rapacity  was  unknown  to  it; 
the  axe  was  not  among  the  instruments 
of  its  accomplishment ;  and  we  all  know 
that  it  could  not  have  lived  a  single  day 
under  any  well-founded  imputation  of 
possessing  a  tendency  adverse  to  the 
Christian  religion. 

It  need  not  surprise  us,  that,  under 
circumstances  less  auspicious,  political 
revolutions  elsewhere,  even  when  well 
intended,  haAre  terminated  differently. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  great  achievement,  it  is 
the  master-work  of  the  world,  to  estab 
lish  governments  entirely  popular  on 
lasting  foundations;  nor  is  it  easy,  in 
deed,  to  introduce  the  popular  principle 
at  all  into  governments  to  which  it  has 
been  altogether  a  stranger.  It  cannot 
be  doubted,  however,  that  Europe  has 
come  out  of  the  contest,  in  which  she 
has  -been  so  long  engaged,  with  greatly 
superior  knowledge,  and,  in  many  re 
spects,  in  a  highly  improved  condition. 
Whatever  benefit  has  been  acquired  is 
likely  to  be  retained,  for  it  consists 
mainly  in  the  acquisition  of  more  en 
lightened  ideas.  And  although  king 
doms  and  provinces  may  be  wrested 
from  the  hands  that  hold  them,  in  the 
same  manner  they  were  obtained;  al 
though  ordinary  and  vulgar  power  may, 
in  human  affairs,  be  lost  as  it  has  been 
Won;  yet  it  is  the  glorious  prerogative 
of  the  empire  of  knowledge,  that  what 
it  gains  it  never  loses.  On  the  contrary, 
it  increases  by  the  multiple  of  its  own 
power;  all  its  ends  become  means;  all 
its  attainments,  helps  to  new  conquests. 
Its  whole  abundant  harvest  is  but  so  much 
seed  wheat,  and  nothing  has  limited,  and 


THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


133 


nothing  can  limit,  the  amount  of  ultimate 
product. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  rapidly  in 
creasing  knowledge,  the  people  have  be 
gun,  in  all  forms  of  government,  to 
think  and  to  reason,  on  affairs  of  state. 
Regarding  government  as  an  institution 
for  the  public  good,  they  demand  a 
knowledge  of  its  operations,  and  a  par 
ticipation  in  its  exercise.  A  call  for  the 
representative  system,  wherever  it  is  not 
enjoyed,  and  where  there  is  already  in 
telligence  enough  to  estimate  its  value, 
is  perse veringly  made.  Where  men  may 
speak  out,  they  demand  it;  where  the 
bajxmet  is  at  their  throats,  they  pray 
for  it. 

When  Louis  the  Fourteenth  said,  "I 
am  the  state,"  he  expressed  the  essence 
of  the  doctrine  of  unlimited  power.  By 
the  rules  of  that  system,  the  people  are 
disconnected  from  the  state ;  they  are  its 
subjects;  it  is  their  lord.  These  ideas, 
founded  in  the  love  of  power,  and  long 
supported  by  the  excess  and  the  abuse 
of  it,  are  yielding,  in  our  age,  to  other 
opinions;  and  the  civilized  world  seems 
ut  last  to  be  proceeding  to  the  conviction 
of  that  fundamental  and  manifest  truth, 
that  the  powers  of  government  are  but 
a  trust,  and  that  they  cannot  be  lawfully 
exercised  but  for  the  good  of  the  com 
munity.  As  knowledge  is  more  and 
more  extended,  this  conviction  becomes 
more  and  more  general.  Knowledge, 
in  truth,  is  the  great  sun  in  the  firma 
ment.  Life  and  power  are  scattered 
with  all  its  beams.  The  prayer  of  the 
Grecian  champion,  when  enveloped  in 
unnatural  clouds  and  darkness,  is  the 
appropriate  political  supplication  for  the 
people  of  every  country  not  yet  blessed 
with  free  institutions :  — 

"Dispel  this  cloud,  the  light  of  heaven  restore, 
Give  me  TO  SEE,  — and  Ajax  asks  no  more." 

We  may  hope  that  the  growing  influ 
ence  of  enlightened  sentiment  will  pro 
mote  the  permanent  peace  of  the  world. 
Wars  to  maintain  family  alliances,  to 
uphold  or  to  cast  down  dynasties,  and 
to  regulate  successions  to  thrones,  which 
have  occupied  so  much  room  in  the  his 
tory  of  modern  times,  if  not  less  likely 
to  happen  at  all,  will  be  less  likely  to  be 


come  general  and  involve  many  nations, 
as  the  great  principle  shall  be  more  and 
more  established,  that  the  interest  of  the 
world  is  peace,  and  its  first  great  statute, 
that  every  nation  possesses  the  power  of 
establishing  a  government  for  itself. 
But  public  opinion  has  attained  also  an 
influence  over  governments  which  do  not 
admit  the  popular  principle  into  their 
organization.  A  necessary  respect  for 
the  judgment  of  the  world  operates,  in 
some  measure,  as  a  control  over  the  most 
unlimited  forms  of  authority.  It  is 
owing,  perhaps,  to  this  truth,  that  the 
interesting  struggle  of  the  Greeks  has 
been  suffered  to  go  on  so  long,  without 
a  direct  interference,  either  to  wrest  that 
country  from  its  present  masters,  or  to 
execute  the  system  of  pacification  by 
force,  and,  with  united  strength,  lay  the 
neck  of  Christian  and  civilized  Greek  at 
the  foot  of  the  barbarian  Turk.  Let  us 
thank  God  that  \ve  live  in  an  age  when 
something  has  influence  besides  the  bayo 
net,  and  when  the  sternest  authority  does 
not  venture  to  encounter  the  scorching 
power  of  public  reproach.  Any  attempt 
of  the  kind  I  have  mentioned  should  be 
met  by  one  universal  burst  of  indigna 
tion  ;  the  air  of  the  civilized  world  ought 
to  be  made  too  warm  to  be  comfortably 
breathed  by  any  one  who  would  haz 
ard  it. 

It  is,  indeed,  a  touching  reflection, 
that,  while,  in  the  fulness  of  our  country's 
happiness,  wTe  rear  this  monument  to  her 
honor,  we  look  for  instruction  in  our 
undertaking  to  a  country  which  is  now 
in  fearful  contest,  not  for  works  of  art 
or  memorials  of  glory,  but  for  her  own 
existence.  Let  her  be  assured,  that  she 
is  not  forgotten  in  the  world;  that  her 
efforts  are  applauded,  and  that  constant 
prayers  ascend  for  her  success.  And  let 
us  cherish  a  confident  hope  for  her  final 
triumph.  If  the  true  spark  of  religious 
and  civil  liberty  be  kindled,  it  will  burn. 
Human  agency  cannot  extinguish  it. 
Like  the  earth's  central  fire,  it  may  be 
smothered  for  a  time;  the  ocean  may 
overwhelm,  it;  mountains  may  press  it 
down ;  but  its  inherent  and  unconquer 
able  force  will  heave  both  the  ocean  and 
the  land,  and  at  some  time  or  other,  in 


134 


THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


some  place  or  other,  the  volcano  will 
break  out  and  flame  up  to  heaven. 

Among  the  great  events  of  the  half- 
century,  we  must  reckon,  certainly,  the 
revolution  of  South  America;  and  we 
are  not  likely  to  overrate  the  importance 
of  that  revolution,  either  to  the  people 
of  the  country  itself  or  to  the  rest  of  the 
world.  The  late  Spanish  colonies,  now 
independent  states,  under  circumstances 
less  favorable,  doubtless,  than  attended 
our  own  revolution,  have  yet  successful 
ly  commenced  their  national  existence. 
They  have  accomplished  the  great  ob 
ject  of  establishing  their  independence ; 
they  are  known  and  acknowledged  in 
the  world;  and  although  in  regard  to 
their  systems  of  government,  their  senti 
ments  on  religious  toleration,  and  their 
provisions  for  public  instruction,  they 
may  have  yet  much  to  learn,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  they  have  risen  to  the  con 
dition  of  settled  and  established  states 
more  rapidly  than  could  have  been  rea 
sonably  anticipated.  They  already  fur 
nish  an  exhilarating  example  of  the  dif 
ference  between  free  governments  and 
despotic  misrule.  Their  commerce,  at 
this  moment,  creates  a  new  activity  in 
all  the  great  marts  of  the  world.  They 
show  themselves  able,  by  an  exchange 
of  commodities,  to  bear  a  useful  part  in 
the  intercourse  of  nations. 

A  new  spirit  of  enterprise  and  indus 
try  begins  to  prevail;  all  the  great  in 
terests  of  society  receive  a  salutary  im 
pulse  ;  and  the  progress  of  information 
not  only  testifies  to  an  improved  condi 
tion,  but  itself  constitutes  the  highest 
and  most  essential  improvement. 

When  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was 
fought,  the  existence  of  South  America 
was  scarcely  felt  in  the  civilized  world. 
The  thirteen  little  Colonies  of  North 
America  habitually  called  themselves 
the  "Continent."  Borne  down  by  co 
lonial  subjugation,  monopoly,  and  big 
otry,  these  vast  regions  of  the  South 
were  hardly  visible  above  the  horizon. 
But  in  our  day  there  has  been,  as  it 
were,  a  new  creation.  The  southern 
hemisphere  emerges  from  the  sea.  Its 
lofty  mountains  begin  to  lift  themselves 
into  the  light  of  heaven ;  its  broad  and 


fertile  plains  stretch  out,  in  beauty,  to 
the  eye  of  civilized  man,  and  at  the 
mighty  bidding  of  the  voice  of  political 
liberty  yae  waters  of  darkness  retire. 

And,  now,  let  us  indulge  an  honest 
exultation  in  the  conviction  of  the  ben 
efit  which  the  example  of  our  country 
has  produced,  and  is  likely  to  produce, 
on  human  freedom  and  human  happi 
ness.  Let  us  endeavor  to  comprehend 
in  all  its  magnitude,  and  to  feel  in  all 
its  importance,  the  part  assigned  to  us 
in  the  great  drama  of  human  affairs. 
We  are  placed  at  the  head  of  the  system 
of  representative  and  popular  govern 
ments.  Thus  far  our  example  shows 
that  such  governments  are  compatible, 
not  only  with  respectability  and  power, 
but  with  repose,  with  peace,  with  secu 
rity  of  personal  rights,  with  good  laws, 
and  a  just  administration. 

We  are  not  propagandists.  Wherever 
other  systems  are  preferred,  either  as 
being  thought  better  in  themselves,  or 
as  better  suited  to  existing  condition, 
we  leave  the  preference  to  be  enjoyed. 
Our  history  hitherto  proves,  however, 
that  the  popular  form  is  practicable  „  and 
that  with  wisdom  and  knowledge  men 
may  govern  themselves;  and  the  duty 
incumbent  on  us  is,  to  preserve  the  con 
sistency  of  this  cheering  example,  and 
take  care  that  nothing  may  weaken  its 
authority  with  the  world.  If,  in  our 
case,  the  representative  system  ultimate 
ly  fail,  popular  governments  must  be 
pronounced  impossible.  No  combina 
tion  of  circumstances  more  favorable 
to  the  experiment  can  ever  be  expected 
to  occur.  The  last  hopes  of  mankind, 
therefore,  rest  with  us ;  and  if  it  should 
be  proclaimed,  that  our  example  had 
become  an  argument  against  the  experi 
ment,  the  knell  of  popular  liberty  would 
be  sounded  throughout  the  earth. 

These  are  excitements  to  duty;  but 
they  are  not  suggestions  of  doubt.  Our 
history  and  our  condition,  all  that  is 
gone  before  us,  and  all  that  surrounds 
us,  authorize  the  belief,  that  popular 
governments,  though  subject  to  occa 
sional  variations,  in  form  perhaps  not 
always  for  the  better,  may  yet,  in  th<ur 


THE   BUNKER  HILL   MONUMENT. 


135 


general  character,  be  as  durable  and 
permanent  as  other  systems.  We  know, 
indeed,  that  in  our  country  any  other  is 
impossible.  The  principle  of  free  gov 
ernments  adheres  to  the  American  soil. 
It  is  bedded  in  it,  immovable  as  its 
mountains. 

i  And  let  the  sacred  obligations  which 
have  devolved  on  this  generation,  and 
on  us,  sink  deep  into  our  hearts.  Those 
who  established  our  liberty  and  our  gov 
ernment  are  daily  dropping  from  among 
us.  The  great  trust  now  descends  to 
new  hands.  Let  us  apply  ourselves  to 
that  which  is  presented  to  us,  as  our 
appropriate  object.  We  can  win  no  lau 
rels  in  a  war  for  independence.  Earlier 
and  worthier  hands  have  gathered  them 
all.  Nor  are  there  places  for  us  by  th 
side  of  Solon,  and  Alfred,  and  oth^ 
founders  of  states.  Our  fathers  have 
filled  them.  But  there  remains  to  us  a 
great  duty  of  defence  and  preservation ; 
and  there  is  opened  to  us,  also,  a  noble 
pursuit,  to  which  the  spirit  of  the  times 
strongly  invites  us.  Our  proper  business 
is  improvement.  Let  our  age  be  the  age 


of  improvement.  In  a  day  of  peace,  let 
us  advance  the  arts  of  peace  and  the 
works  of  peace.  Let  us  develop  the  re 
sources  of  our  land,  call  forth  its  pow 
ers,  build  up  its  institutions,  promote 
all  its  great  interests,  and  see  whether 
we  also,  in  our  day  and  generation,  may 
not  perform  something  worthy  to  be  re 
membered.  Let  us  cultivate  a  true  spirit 
of  union  and  harmony.  In  pursuing  the 
great  objects  which  our  condition  points 
out  to  us,  let  us  act  under  a  settled  con 
viction,  and  an  habitual  feeling,  that 
these  twenty-four  States  are  one  coun 
try.  Let  our  conceptions  be  enlarged  to 
the  circle  of  our  duties.  Let  us  extend 
our  ideas  over  the  whole  of  the  vast  field 
jn  which  we  are  called  to  act.  Let  our 
object  be,  OUR  COUNTRY,  OUR  WHOLE 

COUNTRY,   AND   NOTHING   BUT   OUR 

COUNTRY.  And,  by  the  blessing  of 
God,  may  that  country  itself  become  a 
vast  and  splendid  monument,  not  of  op 
pression  and  terror,  but  of  Wisdom,  of 
Peace,  and  of  Liberty,  upon  which  the 
world  may  gaze  with  admiration  for 
ever  ! 


THE    COMPLETION    OF    THE"  BUNKER    HILL 
MONUMENT. 


AN  ADDRESS    DELIVERED  ON  BUNKER   HILL,   ON  THE  I?TH  OF  JUNE,   1843, 
ON  OCCASION  OF  THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  MONUMENT. 


[!N  the  introductory  note  to  the  preceding 
Address,  a  brief  account  is  given  of  the 
origin  and  progress  of  the  measures  adopted 
for  the  erection  of  the  Bunker  Hill  Monu 
ment,  down  to  the  time  of  laying  the  cor 
ner-stone,  compiled  from  Mr.  Froth ingham's 
History  of  the  Siege  of  Boston.  The  same 
valuable  work  (pp.  345-352)  relates  the  ob 
stacles  which  presented  themselves  to  the 
rapid  execution  of  the  design,  and  the  means 
by  which  they  were  overcome.  In  this  nar 
rative,  Mr.  Frothingham  has  done  justice  to 
the  efforts  and  exertions  of  the  successive 
boards  of  direction  and  officers  of  the  Asso 
ciation,  to  the  skill  and  disinterestedness  of 
the  architect,  to  the  liberality  of  distin 
guished  individuals,  to  the  public  spirit  of 
the  Massachusetts  Charitable  Mechanic  As 
sociation,  in  promoting  a  renewed  subscrip 
tion,  and  to  the  patriotic  zeal  of  the  ladies 
of  Boston  and  the  vicinity,  in  holding  a 
most  successful  fair.  As  it  would  be  diffi 
cult  farther  to  condense  the  information 
contained  in  this  interesting  summary,  we 
must  refer  the  reader  to  Mr.  Frothingham's 
work  for  an  adequate  account  of  the  causes 
which  delayed  the  completion  of  the  monu 
ment  for  nearly  seventeen  years,  and  of  the 
resources  and  exertions  by  which  the  de 
sired  end  was  finally  attained.  The  last 
stone  was  raised  to  its  place  on  the  morning 
of  the  23d  of  July,  1842. 

It  was  determined  by  the  directors  of  the 
Association,  that  the  completion  of  the  work 
should  be  celebrated  in  a  manner  not  less 
imposing  than  that  in  which  the  laying  of 
the  corner-stone  had  been  celebrated^  seven 
teen  years  before.  The  co-operation  of  Mr. 
Webster  was  again  invited,  and,  notwith 
standing  the  pressure  of  his  engagements 
as  Secretary  of  State  at  Washington,  was 
again  patriotically  yielded.  Many  circum 
stances  conspired  to  increase  the  interest  of 
the  occasion.  The  completion  of  the  monu 
ment  had  been  long  delayed,  but  in  the  in 
terval  the  subject  had  been  kept  much 
before  the  public  mind.  Mr.  Webster's  ad 
dress  on  the  17th  of  June,  1825,  had  obtained 
the  widest  circulation  throughout  the  coun 


try;  passages  from  it  had  passed  into 
household  words  throughout  the  Union. 
Wherever  they  were  repeated,  they  made 
the  Bunker  Hill  Monument  a  familiar 
thought  with  the  people.  Meantime,  Bos 
ton  and  Charlestown  had  doubled  their 
population,  and  the  multiplication  of  rail 
roads  in  every  direction  enabled  a  person, 
in  almost  any  part  of  New  England,  to  reach 
the  metropolis  in  a  day.  The  President  of 
the  United  States  and  his  Cabinet  had  ac 
cepted  invitations  to  be  present ;  delegations 
of  the  descendants  of  New  England  were 
present  from  the  remotest  parts  of  the 
Union ;  one  hundred  and  eight  surviving 
veterans  of  the  Revolution,  among  whom 
were  some  who  were  in  the  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill,  imparted  a  touching  interest  to  the 
scene. 

Every  thing  conspired  to  promote  the 
success  of  the  ceremonial.  The  day  was 
uncommonly  fine ;  cool  for  the  season,  and 
clear.  A  large  volunteer  force  from  vari 
ous  parts  of  the  country  had  assembled  for 
the  occasion,  and  formed  a  brilliant  escort 
to  an  immense  procession,  as  it  moved  from 
Boston  to  the  battle-ground  on  the  hill.' 
The  bank  which  slopes  down  from  the  obe 
lisk  on  the  eastern  side  of  Monument  Square 
was  covered  with  seats,  rising  in  the  form 
of  an  amphitheatre,  under  the  open  sky. 
These  had  been  prepared  for  ladies,  who 
had  assembled  in  great  numbers,  awaiting 
the  arrival  of  the  procession.  When  it  ar 
rived,  it  was  received  into  a  large  open  area 
in  front  of  these  seats.  Mr.  Webster  was 
stationed  upon  an  elevated  platform,  in 
front  of  the  audience  and  of  the  monument 
towering  in  the  background.  According 
to  Mr.  Frothingham's  estimate,  a  hundred 
thousand  persons  were  gathered  about  the 
spot,  and  nearly  half  that  number  are  sup 
posed  to  have  been  within  the  reach  of  the 
orator's  voice.  The  ground  rises  slightly 
between  the  platform  and  the  Monument 
Square,  so  that  the  whole  of  this  immense 
concourse,  compactly  crowded  together, 
breathless  with  attention,  swayed  by  one 
sentiment  of  admiration  and  delight,  was 


COMPLETION  OF   THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT. 


137 


within  the  full  view  of  the  speaker.  The 
position  and  the  occasion  were  the  height 
of  the  moral  sublime.  "  When,  after  say 
ing,  '  It  is  not  from  my  lips,  it  could  not  be 
from  any  human  lips,  that  that  strain  of 
eloquence  is  this  day  to  flow  most  compe 
tent  to  move  and  excite  the  vast  multitude 
around  me,  —  the  powerful  speaker  stands 
motionless  before  us/ — he  paused,  and  point 
ed  in  silent  admiration  to  the  sublime  struc 
ture,  the  audience  burst  into  long  and  loud 
applause.  It  was  some  moments  before  the 
speaker  could  go  on  with  the  address."] 

A  DUTY  has  been  performed.  A  work 
of  gratitude  and  patriotism  is  completed. 
This  structure,  having  its  foundations 
in  soil  which  drank  deep  of  early  Revo 
lutionary  blood,  has  at  length  reached 
its  destined  height,  and  now  lifts  its 
summit  to  the  skies. 

We  have  assembled  to  celebrate  the 
accomplishment  of  this  undertaking,  and 
to  indulge  afresh  in  the  recollection  of 
the  great  event  which  it  is  designed  to 
commemorate.  Eighteen  years,  more 
than  half  the  ordinary  duration  of  a 
generation  of  mankind,  have  elapsed 
since  the  corner-stone  of  this  monument 
was  laid.  The  hopes  of  its  projectors 
rested  on  voluntary  contributions,  pri 
vate  munificence,  and  the  general  favor 
of  the  public.  These  hopes  have  not 
been  disappointed.  Donations  have  been 
made  by  individuals,  in  some  cases  of 
large  amount,  and  smaller  sums  have 
been  contributed  by  thousands.  All 
who  regard  the  object  itself  as  impor 
tant,  and  its  accomplishment,  therefore, 
as  a  good  attained,  will  entertain  sincere 
respect  and  gratitude  for  the  unwearied 
efforts  of  the  successive  presidents, 
boards  of  directors,  and  committees  of 
the  Association  which  has  had  the  gen 
eral  control  of  the  work.  The  architect, 
equally  entitled  to  our  thanks  and  com 
mendation,  will  find  other  reward,  also, 
for  his  labor  and  skill,  in  the  beauty  and 
elegance  of  the  obelisk  itself,  and  the 
distinction  which,  as  a  work  of  art,  it 
confers  upon  him. 

At  a  period  when  the  prospects  of  fur 
ther  progress  in  the  undertaking  were 
gloomy  and  discouraging,  the  Mechanic 
Association,  by  a  most  praiseworthy  and 
vigorous  effort,  raised  new  funds  for  car 
rying  it  forward,  and  saw  them  applied 


with  fidelity,  economy,  and  skill.  It  is 
a  grateful  duty  to  make  public  acknowl 
edgments  of  such  timely  and  efficient 
aid. 

The  last  effort  and  the  last  contribu 
tion  were  from  a  different  source.  Gar 
lands  of  grace  and  elegance  were  destined 
to  crown  a  work  which  had  its  com 
mencement  in  manly  patriotism.  The 
winning  power  of  the  sex  addressed  it 
self  to  the  public,  and  all  that  was 
needed  to  carry  the  monument  to  its 
proposed  height,  and  to  give  to  it  its 
finish,  was  promptly  supplied.  The 
mothers  and  the  daughters  of  the  land 
contributed  thus,  most  successfully,  to 
whatever  there  is  of  beauty  in  the  monu 
ment  itself,  or  whatever  of  utility  and 
public  benefit  and  gratification  there  is 
in  its  completion. 

Of  those  with  whom  the  plan  origi 
nated  of  erecting  on  this  spot  a 
monument  worthy  of  the  event  to  be 
commemorated,  many  are  now  present; 
but  others,  alas !  have  themselves  be 
come  subjects  of  monumental  inscrip 
tion.  William  Tudor,  an  accomplished 
scholar,  a  distinguished  writer,  a  most 
amiable  man,  allied  both  by  birth  and 
sentiment  to  the  patriots  of  the  Revolu 
tion,  died  while  on  public  service  abroad, 
and  now  lies  buried  in  a  foreign  land.1 
William  Sullivan,  a  name  fragrant  of 
Revolutionary  merit,  and  of  public  ser 
vice  and  public  virtue,  who  himself  par 
took  in  a  high  degree  of  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  the  community,  and  yet 
was  always  most  loved  where  best  known, 
has  also  been  gathered  to  his  fathers. 
And  last,  George  Blake,  a  lawyer  of 
learning  and  eloquence,  a  man  of  wit 
and  of  talent,  of  social  qualities  the  most 
agreeable  and  fascinating,  and  of  gifts 
which  enabled  him  to  exercise  large 
sway  over  public  assemblies,  has  closed 
his  human  career.'2  I  know  that  in  the 
crowds  before  me  there  are  those  from 
whose  eyes  tears  will  flow  at  the  men- 

1  William  Tudor  died  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  as 
Charge  d' Affaires   of   the    United    States,    in 
1830. 

2  William  Sullivan  died  in  Boston  in  1839, 
George  Blake  in  1841,  both  gentlemen  of  great 
political  and  legal  eminence. 


138 


COMPLETION   OF   THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


tion  of  these  names.  But  such  mention 
is  due  to  their  general  character,  their 
public  and  private  virtues,  and  espe 
cially,  on  this  occasion,  to  the  spirit  and 
zeal  with  which  they  entered  into  the 
undertaking  which  is  now  completed. 

I  have  spoken  only  of  those  who  are 
no  longer  numbered  with  the  living. 
But  a  long  life,  now  drawing  towards 
its  close,  always  distinguished  by  acts 
of  public  spirit,  humanity,  and  charity, 
forming  a  character  which  has  already 
become  historical,  and  sanctified  by 
public  regard  and  the  affection  of 
friends,  may  confer  even  on  the  living 
the  proper  immunity  of  the  dead,  and 
be  the  fit  subject  of  honorable  mention 
and  warm  commendation.  Of  the  early 
projectors  of  the  design  of  this  monu 
ment,  one  of  the  most  prominent,  the 
most  zealous,  and  the  most  efficient,  is 
Thomas  H.  Perkins.  It  was  beneath 
his  ever-hospitable  roof  that  those  whom 
I  have  mentioned,  and  others  yet  living 
and  now  present,  having  assembled  for 
the  purpose,  adopted  the  first  step  to 
wards  erecting  a  monument  on  Bunker 
Hill.  Long  may  he  remain,  with  un 
impaired  faculties,  in  the  wide  field  of 
his  usefulness  !  His  charities  have  dis 
tilled,  like  the  dews  of  heaven;  he  has 
fed  the  hungry,  and  clothed  the  naked; 
he  has  given  sight  to  the  blind;  and  for 
such  virtues  there  is  a  reward  on  high, 
of  which  all  human  memorials,  all  lan 
guage  of  brass  and  stone,  are  but  hum 
ble  types  and  attempted  imitations. 

Time  and  nature  have  had  their 
course,  in  diminishing  the  number  of 
those  whom  we  met  here  on  the  17th  of 
June,  1825.  Most  of  the  Revolutionary 
characters  then  present  have  since  de 
ceased;  and  Lafayette  sleeps  in  his  na 
tive  land.  Yet  the  name  and  blood  of 
Warren  are  with  us;  the  kindred  of 
Putnam  are  also  here;  and  near  me, 
universally  beloved  for  his  character 
and  his  virtues,  and  now  venerable  for 
his  years,  sits  the  son  of  the  noble- 
hearted  and  daring  Prescott.1  Gideon 

1  William  Presoott  (since  deceased,  in  1844), 
son  of  Colonel  William  Prescott,  who  com 
manded  on  the  17th  of  June,  1775,  and  father 
of  William  H.  Prescott,  the  historian. 


Foster  of  Danvers,  Enos  Reynolds  of 
Boxford,  Phineas  Johnson,  Robert  An 
drews,  Elijah  Dresser,  Josiah  Cleave- 
land,  Jesse  Smith,  Philip  Bagley,  Need- 
ham  Maynard,  Roger  Plaisted,  Joseph 
Stephens,  Nehemiah  Porter,  and  James 
Harvey,  who  bore  arms  for  their  country 
either  at  Concord  and  Lexington,  on  the 
19th  of  April,  or  on  Bunker  Hill,  all  now 
far  advanced  in  age,  have  come  here  to 
day,  to  look  once  more  on  the  field 
where  their  valor  was  proved,  and  to  re 
ceive  a  hearty  outpouring  of  our  respect. 

They  have  long  outlived  the  troubles 
and  dangers  of  the  Revolution;  they 
have  outlived  the  evils  arising  from  the 
want  of  a  united  and  efficient  govern 
ment  ;  they  have  outlived  the  menace  of 
imminent  dangers  to  the  public  liberty; 
they,  have  outlived  nearly  all  their  con 
temporaries; —  but  they  have  not  out- 
U/ed,  they  cannot  outlive,  the  affection- 
*(te  gratitude  of  their  country.  Heaven 
has  not  allotted  to  this  generation  an 
opportunity  of  rendering  high  services, 
and  manifesting  strong  personal  devo 
tion,  such  as  they  rendered  and  mani 
fested,  and  in  such  a  cause  as  that  which 
roused  the  patriotic  fires  of  their  youth 
ful  breasts,  and  nerved  the  strength  of 
their  arms.  But  we  may  praise  what 
we  cannot  equal,  and  celebrate  actions 
which  we  were  not  born  to  perform. 
Pulchrum  est  benefacere  reipublicce,  etiam 
bene  dicere  haud  absurdum  est. 

The  Bunker  Hill  Monument  is  fin 
ished.  Here  it  stands.  Fortunate  in 
the  high  natural  eminence  on  which  it 
is  placed,  higher,  infinitely  higher  in 
its  objects  and  purpose,  it  rises  over 
the  land  and  over  the  sea;  and,  visi 
ble,  at  their  homes,  to  three  hun 
dred  thousand  of  the  people  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  it  stands  a  memorial  of 
the  last,  and  a  monitor  to  the  present, 
and  to  all  succeeding  generations.  I 
have  spoken  of  the  loftiness  of  its  pur 
pose.  If  it  had  been  without  any  other 
design  than  the  creation  of  a  work  of 
art,  the  granite  of  which  it  is  composed 
would  have  slept  in  its  native  bed.  It 
has  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose  gives 
it  its  character.  That  purpose  enrobes  it 
with  dignity  and  moral  grandeur.  That 


COMPLETION  OF  THE  BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


139 


well-known  purpose  it  is  which  causes 
us  to  look  up  to  it  with  a  feeling  of  awe. 
It  is  itself  the  orator  of  this  occasion. 
It  is  not  from  my  lips,  it  could  not! be 
from  any  human  lips,  that  that  strain  of 
eloquence  is  this  day  to  flow  most  com 
petent  to  move  and  excite  the  vast 
multitudes  around  me.^/The  powerful 
speaker  stands  motiorfless  before  us. 
It  is  a  plain  shaft.  It  bears  no  inscrip 
tions,  fronting  to  the  rising  sun,  from 
which  the  future  antiquary  shall  wipe 
the  dust.  Nor  does  the  rising  sun  cause 
tones  of  music  to  issue  from  its  summit. 
But  at  the  rising  of  the  sun,  and  at  the 
setting  of  the  sun ;  in  the  blaze  of  noon 
day,  and  beneath  the  milder  effulgence 
of  lunar  light;  it  looks,  it  speaks,  it 
acts,  to  the  full  comprehension  of  every 
American  mind,  and  the  awakening  of 
glowing  enthusiasm  in  every  American 
heart/"  Its  silent,  but  awful  utterance; 
its  jafeep  pathos,  as  it  brings  to  our  con 
templation  the  17th  of  June,  1775,  and 
the  consequences  which  have  resulted  to 
us,  to  our  country,  and  to  the  world, 
from  the  events  of  that  day,  and  which 
we  know  must  continue  to  rain  influence 
on  the  destinies  of  mankind  to  the  end 
of  time;  the  elevation  with  which  it 
raises  us  high  above  the  ordinary  feel 
ings  of  life,  — surpass  all  that  the  study 
of  the  closet,  or  even  the  inspiration  of 
genius,  can  produce.  To-day  it  speaks 
to  us.  Its  future  auditories  will  be  the 
successive  generations  of  men,  as  they 
rise  up  before  it  and  gather  around  it. 
Its  speech  will  be  of  patriotism  and 
courage;  of  civil  and  religious  liberty; 
of  free  government;  of  the  moral  im 
provement  and  elevation  of  mankind; 
and  of  the  immortal  memory  of  those 
who,  with  heroic  devotion,  have  sacri 
ficed  their  lives  for  their  country.1 

In  the  older  world,  numerous  fabrics 
still  exist,  reared  by  human  hands,  but 
whose  object  has  been  lost  in  the  dark 
ness  of  ages.  They  are  now  monuments 
of  nothing  but  the  labor  and  skill  which 
constructed  them. 

The  mighty  pyramid  itself,  half  buried 
in  the  sands  of  Africa,  has  nothing  to 

1  See  the  Note  at  the  end  of  the  Address. 


bring  down  and  report  to  us,  but  the 
power  of  kings  and  the  servitude  of  the 
people.  If  it  had  any  purpose  beyond 
that  of  a  mausoleum,  such  purpose  has 
perished  from  history  and  from  tradi 
tion.  If  asked  for  its  moral  object,  its"' 
admonition,  its  sentiment,  its  instruc-  \ 
tion  to  mankind,  or  any  high  end  in  its  \ 
erection,  it  is  silent;  silent  as  the  mil-  j 
lions  which  lie  in  the  dust  at  its  base,  \ 
and  in  the  catacombs  which  surround 
it.  Without  a  just  moral  object,  there 
fore,  made  known  to  man,  though  raised 
against  the  skies,  it  excites  only  convic 
tion  of  power,  mixed  with  strange  won 
der.  But  if  the  civilization  of  the  pres 
ent  race  of  men,  founded,  as  it  is,  in 
solid  science,  the  true  knowledge  of  na 
ture,  and  vast  discoveries  in  art,  and 
which  is  elevated  and  purified  by  moral 
sentiment  and  by  the  truths  of  Chris 
tianity,  be  not  destined  to  destruction 
before  the  final  termination  of  human 
existence  on  earth,  the  object  and  pur 
pose  of  this  edifice  will  be  known  till 
that  hour  shall  come.  And  even  if  civ 
ilization  should  be  subverted,  and  the 
truths  of  the  Christian  religion  obscured 
by  a  new  deluge  of  barbarism,  the 
memory  of  Bunker  Hill  and  the  Ameri 
can  Revolution  will  still  be  elements  and 
parts  of  the  knowledge  which  shall  be 
possessed  by  the  last  man  to  whom  the 
light  of  civilization  and  Christianity 
shall  be  extended. 

This  celebration  is  honored  by  the 
presence  of  the  chief  executive  magis 
trate  of  the  Union.  An  occasion  so  na 
tional  in  its  object  and  character,  and  so 
much  connected  with  that  Revolution 
from  which  the  government  sprang  at 
the  head  of  which  he  is  placed,  may 
well  receive  from  him  this  mark  of  at 
tention  and  respect.  Well  acquainted 
with  Yorktown,  the  scene  of  the  last 
great  military  struggle  of  the  Revolu 
tion,  his  eye  now  surveys  the  field  of 
Bunker  Hill,  the  theatre  of  the  first  of 
those  important  conflicts.  He  sees  where 
Warren  fell,  where  Putnam,  and  Pres- 
cott,  and  Stark,  and  Knowlton,  and 
Brooks  fought.  He  beholds  the  spot 
where  a  thousand  trained  soldiers  of 
England  were  smitten  to  the  earth,  in 


140 


COMPLETION  OF   THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT. 


the  first  effort  of  revolutionary  war,  by 
the  arm  of  a  bold  and  determined  yeo 
manry,  contending  for  liberty  and  their 
country.  And  while  all  assembled  here 
entertain  towards  him  sincere  personal 
good  wishes  and  the  high  respect  due  to 
his  elevated  office  and  station,  it  is  not 
to  be  doubted  that  he  enters,  with  true 
American  feeling,  into  the  patriotic  en 
thusiasm  kindled  by  the  occasion  which 
animates  the  multitudes  that  surround 
him. 

His  Excellency,  the  Governor  of  the 
Commonwealth,  the  Governor  of  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  other  distinguished  pub 
lic  men  whom  we  have  the  honor  to  re 
ceive  as  visitors  and  guests  to-day,  will 
cordially  unite  in  a  celebration  connected 
with  the  great  event  of  the  Revolution 
ary  war. 

No  name  in  the  history  of  1775  and 
1770  is  more  distinguished  than  that 
borne  by  an  ex-President  of  the  United 
States,  whom  we  expected  to  see  here, 
but  whose  ill  health  prevents  his  attend 
ance.  Whenever  popular  rights  were  to 
be  asserted,  an  Adams  was  present;  and 
when  the  time  came  for  the  formal  Dec 
laration  of  Independence,  it  was  the 
voice  of  an  Adams  that  shook  the  halls 
of  Congress.  We  wish  we  could  have 
welcomed  to  us  this  day  the  inheritor  of 
Revolutionary  blood,  and  the  just  and 
worthy  representative  of  high  Revolu 
tionary  names,  merit,  and  services. 

Banners  and  badges,  processions  and 
flags,  announce  to  us,  that  amidst  this 
uncounted  throng  are  thousands  of  na 
tives  of  New  England  now  residents  in 
other  States.  Welcome,  ye  kindred 
names,  with  kindred  blood  I  From  the 
broad  savannas  of  the  South,  from  the 
newer  regions  of  the  West,  from  amidst 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  of 
Eastern  origin  who  cultivate  the  rich 
valley  of  the  Genesee  or  live  along  the 
chain  of  the  Lakes,  from  the  mountains 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  from  the  thronged 
cities  of  the  coast,  welcome,  welcome ! 
Wherever  else  you  may  be  strangers, 
here  you  are  all  at  home.  You  assem 
ble  at  this  shrine  of  liberty,  near  the 
family  altars  at  which  your  earliest  de 
votions  were  paid  to  Heaven,  near  to 


the  temples  of  worship  first  entered  by 
you,  and  near  to  the  schools  and  colleges 
in  which  your  education  was  received. 
You  come  ^hither  with  a  glorious  ances 
try  of  liberty.  You  bring  names  which 
are  on  the  rolls  of  Lexington,  Concord, 
and  Bunker  Hill.  You  corne,  some  of 
you,  once  more  to  be  embraced  by  an 
aged  Revolutionary  father,  or  to  receive 
another,  perhaps  a  last,  blessing,  be 
stowed  in  love  and  tears,  by  a  mother, 
yet  surviving'  to  witness  and  to  enjoy 
your  prosperity  and  happiness. 

But  if  family  associations  and  the 
recollections  of  the  past  bring  you  hither 
with  greater  alacrity,  and  mingle  with 
your  greeting  much  of  local  attachment 
and  private  affection,  greeting  also  be 
given,  free  and  hearty  greeting,  to  every 
American  citizen  who  treads  this  sacred 
soil  with  patriotic  feeling,  and  respires 
with  pleasure  in  an  atmosphere  per 
fumed  with  the  recollections  of  1775! 
This  occasion  is  respectable,  nay,  it  is 
grand,  it  is  sublime,  by  the  nationality 
jof  its  sentiment.  Among  the  seventeen 
millions  of  happy  people  who  form  the 
American  community,  there  is  not  one 
who  has  not  an  interest  in  this  monu 
ment,  as  there  is  not  one  that  has  not  a 
deep  and  abiding  interest  in  that  which 
it  commemorates. 

' — -Woe  betide  the  man  who  brings  to  this 
day's  worship  feeling  less  than  wholly 
American!  Woe  betide  the  man  who 
can  stand  here  with  the  fires  of  local 
resentments  burning,  or  the  purpose  of 
fomenting  local  jealousies  and  the  strifes 
of  local  interests  festering  and  rankling 
in  his  heart!  Union,  established  in  jus 
tice,  in  patriotism,  and  the  most  plain 
and  obvious  common  interest,  —  union, 
founded  on  the  same  love  of  liberty,  ce 
mented  by  blood  shed  in  the  same  com 
mon  cause,  —  union  has  been  the  source 
of  all  our  glory  and  greatness  thus  far, 
and  is  the  ground  of  all  our  highest , 
hopes.  This  column  stands  on  Union. 
I  know  not  that  it  might  not  keep  its 
position,  if  the  American  Union,  in  the 
mad  conflict  of  human  passions,  and  in 
the  strife  of  parties  and  factions,  should 
be  broken  up  and  destroyed.  I  know 
not  that  it  would  totter  and  fall  to  the 


COMPLETION  OF   THE  BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


141 


earth,  and  mingle  its  fragments  with  the 
fragments  of  Liberty  and  the  Consti 
tution,  when  State  should  be  separated 
from  State,  and  faction  and  dismember 
ment  obliterate  for  ever  all  the  hopes  of 
the  founders  of  our  republic,  and  the 
great  inheritance  of  their  children.  It 
might  stand.  But  who,  from  beneath 
the  weight  of  mortification  and  shame 
that  would  oppress  him,  could  look  up 
to  behold  it  ?  Whose  eyeballs  would 
not  be  seared  by  such  a  spectacle  ?  For 
my  part,  should  I  live  to  such  a  time,  I 
shall  avert  my  eyes  from  it  for  ever. 

It  is  not  as  a  mere  military  encoun 
ter  of  hostile  armies  that  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  presents  its  principal  claim 
to  attention.  Yet,  even  as  a  mere  bat 
tle,  there  were  circumstances  attending 
it  extraordinary  in  character,  and  enti 
tling  it  to  peculiar  distinction.  It  was 
fought  on  this  eminence ;  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  yonder  city ;  in  the  presence 
of  many  more  spectators  than  there  were 
combatants  in  the  conflict.  Men,  wo 
men,  and  children,  from  every  com 
manding  position,  were  gazing  at  the 
battle,  and  looking  for  its  results  with 
all  the  eagerness  natural  to  those  who 
knew  that  the  issue  was  fraught  with 
the  deepest  consequences  to  themselves, 
personally,  as  well  as  to  their  country. 
Yet,  on  the  16th  of  June,  1775,  there 
was  nothing  around  this  hill  but  verdure 
and  culture.  There  was,  indeed,  the 
note  of  awful  preparation  in  Boston. 
There  was  the  Provincial  army  at  Cam 
bridge,  with  its  right  flank  resting  on 
Dorchester,  and  its  left  on  Chelsea. 
But  here  all  was  peace.  Tranquillity 
reigned  around.  On  the  17th,  every 
thing  was  changed.  On  this  eminence 
had  arisen,  in  the  night,  a  redoubt,  built 
by  Prescott,  and  in  which  he  held  com 
mand.  Perceived  by  the  enemy  at  dawn, 
it  was  immediately  cannonaded  from  the 
floating  batteries  in  the  river,  and  from 
the  opposite  shore.  And  then  ensued 
the  hurried  movement  in  Boston,  and 
soon  the  troops  of  Britain  embarked  in 
the  attempt  to  dislodge  the  Colonists. 
In  an  hour  every  thing  indicated  an  im 
mediate  and  bloody  conflict.  Love  of 
liberty  on  one  side,  proud  defiance  of 


rebellion  on  the  other,  hopes  and  fears, 
and  courage  and  daring,  on  both  sides, 
animated  the  hearts  of  the  combatants 
as  they  hung  on  the  edge  of  battle. 

I  suppose  it  would  be  difficult,  in  a 
military  point  of  view,  to  ascribe  to  the 
leaders  on  either  side  any  just  motive 
for  the  engagement  which  followed.  On 
the  one  hand,  it  could  not  have  been 
very  important  to  the  Americans  to  at 
tempt  to  hem  the  British  within  the 
town,  by  advancing  one  single  post  a 
quarter  of  a  mile;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  British  found  it  essential  to 
dislodge  the  American  troops,  they  had 
it  in  their  power  at  no  expense  of  life. 
By  moving  up  their  ships  and  batteries, 
they  could  have  completely  cut  off  all 
communication  with  the  mainland  over 
the  Neck,  arid  the  forces  in  the  redoubt 
would  have  been  reduced  to  a  state  of 
famine  in  forty-eight  hours. 

But  that  was  not  the  day  for  any  such 
consideration  on  either  side !  Both  par 
ties  were  anxious  to  try  the  strength 
of  their  arms.  The  pride  of  England 
would  not  permit  the  rebels,  as  she 
termed  them,  to  defy  her  to  the  teeth; 
and,  without  for  a  moment  calculating 
the  cost,  the  British  general  determined 
to  destroy  the  fort  immediately.  On  the 
other  side,  Prescott  and  his  gallant  fol 
lowers  longed  and  thirsted  for  a  decisive 
trial  of  strength  and  of  courage.  They 
wished  a  battle,  and  wished  it  at  once. 
And  this  is  the  true  secret  of  the  move 
ments  on  this  hill. 

I  will  not  attempt  to  describe  that 
battle.  The  cannonading;  the  landing 
of  the  British;  their  advance;  the  cool 
ness  with  which  the  charge  was  met; 
the  repulse ;  the  second  attack ;  the  sec 
ond  repulse;  the  burning  of  Charles- 
town;  and,  finally,  the  closing  assault, 
and  the  slow  retreat  of  the  Americans, 
—  the  history  of  all  these  is  familiar. 

But  the  consequences  of  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  were  greater  than  those  of 
any  ordinary  conflict,  although  between 
armies  of  far  greater  force,  and  termi 
nating  with  more  immediate  advantage 
on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  It  was  the 
first  great  battle  of  the  Revolution ;  and 
not  only  the  first  blow,  but  the  blow 


142 


COMPLETION   OF   THE   BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


which  determined  the  contest.  It  did 
not,  indeed,  put  an  end  to  the  war,  but 
in  the  then  existing  hostile  state  of  feel 
ing,  the  difficulties  could  only  be  re 
ferred  to  the  arbitration  of  the  sword. 
And  one  thing  is  certain :  that  after  the 
New  England  troops  had  shown  them 
selves  able  to  face  and  repulse  the  regu 
lars,  it  was  decided  that  peace  never 
could  be  established,  but  upon  the  basis 
of  the  independence  of  the  Colonies. 
When  the  sun  of  that  day  went  down, 
the  event  of  Independence  was  no  longer 
doubtful.  In  a  few  days  Washington 
heard  of  the  battle,  and  he  inquired  if 
the  militia  had  stood  the  fire  of  the  reg 
ulars.  When  told  that  they  had  not 
only  stood  that  fire,  but  reserved  their 
own  till  the  enemy  was  within  eight 
rods,  and  then  poured  it  in  with  tre 
mendous  effect,  "  Then,"  exclaimed  he, 
44  the  liberties  of  the  country  are  safe!  " 

The  consequences  of  this  battle  were 
just  of  the  same  importance  as  the  Rev 
olution  itself. 

If  there  was  nothing  of  value  in  the 
principles  of  the  American  Revolution, 
then  there  is  nothing  valuable  in  the 
battle  of  Bunker  Hill  and  its  conse 
quences.  But  if  the  Revolution  was  an 
era  in  the  history  of  man  favorable  to 
human  happiness,  if  it  was  an  event 
which  marked  the  progress  of  man  all 
over  the  world  from  despotism  to  lib 
erty,  then  this  monument  is  not  raised 
without  cause.  Then  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  is  not  an  event  undeserving 
celebrations,  commemorations,  and  re 
joicings,  now  and  in  all  coming  times. 

What,  then,  is  the  true  and  peculiar 
principle  of  the  American  Revolution, 
and  of  the  systems  of  government  which 
it  has  confirmed  and  established?  The 
truth  is,  that  the  American  Revolution 
was  not  caused  by  the  instantaneous  dis 
covery  of  principles  of  government  be 
fore  unheard  of,  or  the  practical  adoption 
of  political  ideas  such  as  had  never  be 
fore  entered  into  the  minds  of  men.  It 
was  but  the  full  development  of  princi 
ples  of  government,  forms  of  society, 
and  political  sentiments,  the  origin  of 
all  which  lay  back  two  centuries  in  Eng 
lish  and  American  history. 


The  discovery  of  America,  its  colo 
nization  by  the  nations  of  Europe,  the 
history  and  progress  of  the  colonies, 
from  the^r  establishment  to  the  time 
when  the  principal  of  them  threw  off 
their  allegiance  to  the  respective  states 
by  which  they  had  been  planted,  and 
founded  governments  of  their  own,  con 
stitute  one  of  the  most  interesting  por 
tions  of  the  annals  of  man.  These 
events  occupied  three  hundred  years; 
during  which  period  civilization  and 
knowledge  made  steady  progress  in  the 
Old  World;  so  that  Europe,  at  the  com 
mencement  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
had  become  greatly  changed  from  that 
Europe  which  began  the  colonization  of 
America  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth, 
or  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth. 
And  what  is  most  material  to  my  pres 
ent  purpose  is,  that  in  the  progress  of 
the  first  of  these  centuries,  that  is  to 
say,  from  the  discovery  of  America  to 
the  settlements  of  Virginia  and  Massa 
chusetts,  political  and  religious  events 
took  place,  which  most  materially  af 
fected  the  state  of  society  and  the  senti 
ments  of  mankind,  especially  in  England 
and  in  parts  of  Continental  Europe. 
After  a  few  feeble  and  unsuccessful  ef 
forts  by  England,  under  Henry  the 
Seventh,  to  plant  colonies  in  America, 
no  designs  of  that  kind  were  prosecuted 
for  a  long  period,  either  by  the  English 
government  or  any  of  its  subjects. 
Without  inquiring  into  the  causes  of 
this  delay,  its  consequences  are  suffi 
ciently  clear  and  striking.  England,  in 
this  lapse  of  a  century,  unknown  to  her 
self,  but  under  the  providence  of  God 
and  the  influence  of  events,  was  fitting 
herself  for  the  work  of  colonizing  North 
America,  on  such  principles,  and  by  such 
men,  as  should  spread  the  English  name 
and  English  blood,  in  time,  over  a  great 
portion  of  the  Western  hemisphere. 
The  commercial  spirit  was  greatly  fos 
tered  by  several  laws  passed  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  the  Seventh :  and  in  the  same 
reign  encouragement  was  given  to  arts 
and  manufactures  in  the  eastern  coun 
ties,  and  some  not  unimportant  modifi 
cations  of  the  feudal  system  took  place, 
by  allowing  the  breaking  of  entails. 


COMPLETION   OF   THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


143 


These  and  other  measures,  and  other 
occurrences,  were  making  way  for  anew 
class  of  society  to  emerge,  and  show  it 
self,  in  a  military  and  feudal  age;  a 
middle  class,  between  the  barons  or 
great  landholders  and  the  retainers  of 
the  crown,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  ten 
ants  of  the  crown  and  barons,  and  agri 
cultural  and  other  laborers,  on  the  other 
side.  With  the  rise  and  growth  of  this 
new  class  of  society,  not  only  did  com 
merce  and  the  arts  increase,  but  better 
education,  a  greater  degree  of  knowl 
edge,  juster  notions  of  the  true  ends  of 
government,  and  sentiments  favorable 
to  civil  liberty,  began  to  spread  abroad, 
and  become  more  and  more  common. 
But  the  plants  springing  from  these 
seeds  were  of  slow  growth.  The  char 
acter  of  English  society  had  indeed  be 
gun  to  undergo  a  change;  but  changes 
of  national  character  are  ordinarily  the 
work  of  time.  Operative  causes  were, 
however,  evidently  in  existence,  and 
sure  to  produce,  ultimately,  their  proper 
effect.  From  the  accession  of  Henry 
the  Seventh  to  the  breaking  out  of  the 
civil  wars,  England  enjoyed  much  greater 
exemption  from  war,  foreign  and  do 
mestic,  than  for  a  long  period  before, 
and  during  the  controversy  between  the 
houses  of  York  and  Lancaster.  These 
years  of  peace  were  favorable  to  com 
merce  and  the  arts.  Commerce  and  the 
arts  augmented  general  and  individual 
knowledge;  and  knowledge  is  the  only 
fountain,  both  of  the  love  and  the  prin 
ciples  of  human  liberty. 

Other  powerful  causes  soon  came  into 
active  play.  The  Reformation  of  Luther 
broke  out,  kindling  up  the  minds  of  men 
afresh,  leading  to  new  habits  of  thought, 
and  awakening  in  individuals  energies 
before  unknown  even  to  themselves.  The 
religious  controversies  of  this  period 
changed  society,  as  well  as  religion ;  in 
deed,  it  would  be  easy  to  prove,  if  this 
occasion  were  proper  for  it,  that  they 
changed  society  to  a  considerable  ex 
tent,  where  they  did  not  change  the  re 
ligion  of  the  state.  They  changed  man 
himself,  in  his  modes  of  thought,  his 
consciousness  of  his  own  powers,  and 
his  desire  of  intellectual  attainment. 


The  spirit  of  commercial  and  foreign 
adventure,  therefore,  on  the  one  hand, 
which  had  gained  so  much  strength  and 
influence  since  the  time  of  the  discovery 
of  America,  and,  on  the  other,  the  asser 
tion  and  maintenance  of  religious  lib 
erty,  having  their  source  indeed  in  the 
Reformation,  but  continued,  diversified, 
and  constantly  strengthened  by  the  sub 
sequent  divisions  of  sentiment  and  opin 
ion  among  the  Reformers  themselves, 
and  this  love  of  religious  liberty  draw 
ing  after  it,  or  bringing  along  with  it,  as 
it  always  does,  an  ardent  devotion  to  the 
principle  of  civil  liberty  also,  were  the 
powerful  influences  under  which  charac 
ter  was  formed,  and  men  trained,  for  the 
great  work  of  introducing  English  civ 
ilization,  English  law,  and,  what  is  more 
than  all,  Anglo-Saxon  blood,  into  the 
wilderness  of  North  America.  Raleigh 
and  his  companions  may  be  considered 
as  the  creatures,  principally,  of  the  first 
of  these  causes.  High-spirited,  full  of 
the  love  of  personal  adventure,  excited, 
too,  in  some  degree,  by  the  hopes  of 
sudden  riches  from  the  discovery  of 
mines  of  the  precious  metals,  and  not 
unwilling  to  diversify  the  labors  of  set 
tling  a  colony  with  occasional  cruising 
against  the  Spaniards  in  the  West  In 
dian  seas,  they  crossed  and  recrossed  the 
ocean,  with  a  frequency  which  surprises 
us,  when  we  consider  the  state  of  navi 
gation,  and  which  evinces  a  most  daring 
spirit. 

The  other  cause  peopled  New  England. 
The  Mayflower  sought  our  shores  under 
no  high-wrought  spirit  of  commercial 
adventure,  no  love  of  gold,  no  mixture 
of  purpose  warlike  or  hostile  to  any  hu 
man  being.  Like  the  dove  from  the  ark, 
she  had  put  forth  only  to  find  rest.  Sol 
emn  supplications  on  the  shore  of  the 
sea,  in  Holland,  had  invoked  for  her, 
at  her  departure,  the  blessings  of  Provi 
dence.  The  stars  which  guided  her  were 
the  unobscured  constellations  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty.  Her  deck  was  the  altar 
of  the  living  God.  Fervent  prayers  on 
bended  knees  mingled,  morning  and 
evening,  with  the  voices  of  ocean,  and 
the  sighing  of  the  wind  in  her  shrouds. 
Every  prosperous  breeze,  which,  gently 


144 


COMPLETION  OF   THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


swelling  her  sails,  helped  the  Pilgrims 
onward  in  their  course,  awoke  new  an 
thems  of  praise ;  arid  when  the  elements 
were  wrought  into  fury,  neither  the  tem 
pest,  tossing  their  fragile  bark  like  a 
feather,  nor  the  darkness  and  howling 
of  the  midnight  storm,  ever  disturbed, 
in  man  or  woman,  the  firm  and  settled 
purpose  of  their  souls,  to  undergo  all, 
and  to  do  all,  that  the  meekest  patience, 
the  boldest  resolution,  and  the  highest 
trust  in  God,  could  enable  human  beings 
to  suffer  or  to  perform. 

Some  differences  may,  doubtless,  be 
traced  at  this  day  between  the  descend 
ants  of  the  early  colonists  of  Virginia 
and  those  of  New  England,  owing  to 
the  different  influences  and  different 
circumstances  under  which  the  respec 
tive  settlements  were  made;  but  only 
enough  to  create  a  pleasing  variety  in 
the  midst  of  a  general  family  resem 
blance. 

"  Facies,  non  omnibus  una, 
Nee  diversa  tamen,  qualem  decetesse  sororum." 

But  the  habits,  sentiments,  and  objects 
of  both  soon  became  modified  by  local 
causes,  growing  out  of  their  condition 
in  the  New  World;  and  as  this  condi 
tion  was  essentially  alike  in  both,  and 
as  both  at  once  adopted  the  same  gen 
eral  rules  and  principles  of  English  juris 
prudence,  and  became  accustomed  to  the 
authority  of  representative  bodies,  these 
differences  gradually  diminished.  They 
disappeared  by  the  progress  of  time,  and 
the  influence  of  intercourse.  The  neces 
sity  of  some  degree  of  union  and  co-op 
eration  to  defend  themselves  against  the 
savage  tribes,  tended  to  excite  in  them 
mutual  respect  and  regard.  They  fought 
together  in  the  wars  against  France.  The 
great  and  common  cause  of  the  Revolu 
tion  bound  them  to  one  another  by  new 
links  of  brotherhood  ;  and  at  length 
the  present  constitution  of  government 
united  them  happily  and  gloriously,  to 
form  the  great  republic  of  the  world, 
and  bound  up  their  interests  and  for 
tunes,  till  the  whole  earth  sees  that  there 
is  now  for  them,  in  present  possession 
as  well  as  in  future  hope,  but  "One 
Country,  One  Constitution,  and  One 
Destiny." 


The  colonization  of  the  tropical  region, 
and  the  whole  of  the  southern  parts  of 
the  continent,  by  Spain  and  Portugal, 
was  conducted  on  other  principles,  un 
der  the  influence  of  other  motives,  and 
followed  by  far  different  consequences. 
From  the  time  of  its  discovery,  the 
Spanish  government  pushed  forward  its 
settlements  in  America,  not  only  with 
vigor,  but  with  eagerness ;  so  that  long 
before  the  first  permanent  English  set 
tlement  had' been  accomplished  in  what 
is  now  the  United  States,  Spain  had 
conquered  Mexico,  Peru,  and  Chili,  and 
stretched  her  power  over  nearly  all  the 
territory  she  ever  acquired  on  this  con 
tinent.  The  rapidity  of  these  conquests 
is  to  be  ascribed  in  a  great  degree  to 
the  eagerness,  not  to  say  the  rapacity, 
of  those  numerous  bands  of  adventurers, 
who  were  stimulated  by  individual  in 
terests  and  private  hopes  to  subdue  im 
mense  regions,  and  take  possession  of 
them  in  the  name  of  the  crown  of  Spain. 
The  mines  of  gold  and  silver  were  the 
incitements  to  these  efforts,  and  accord 
ingly  settlements  were  generally  made, 
and  Spanish  authority  established  im 
mediately  on  the  subjugation  of  terri 
tory,  that  the  native  population  might 
be  set  to  work  by  their  new  Spanish 
masters  in  the  mines.  From  these  facts, 
the  love  of  gold  —  gold,  not  produced  by 
industry,  nor  accumulated  by  commerce, 
but  gold  dug  from  its  native  bed  in  the 
bowels  of  the  earth,  and  that  earth  rav 
ished  from  its  rightful  possessors  by  ev 
ery  possible  degree  of  enormity,  cruelty, 
and  crime  —  was  long  the  governing 
passion  in  Spanish  wars  and  Spanish 
settlements  in  America.  Even  Columbus 
himself  did  not  wholly  escape  the  influ 
ence  of  this  base  motive.  In  his  early 
voyages  we  find  him  passing  from  island 
to  island,  inquiring  everywhere  for  gold; 
as  if  God  had  opened  the  Xew  World  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  Old,  only  to  gratify 
a  passion  equally  senseless  and  sordid, 
and  to  offer  up  millions  of  an  unoffend 
ing  race  of  men  to  the  destruction  of  the 
sword,  sharpened  both  by  cruelty  and 
rapacity.  And  yet  Columbus  was  far 
above  his  age  and  country.  Enthusi 
astic,  indeed,  but  sober,  religious,  and 


COMPLETION   OF  THE  BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


145 


magnanimous;  born  to  great  things  and 
capable  of  high  sentiments,  as  his  noble 
discourse  before  Ferdinand  and  Isabella, 
as  well  as  the  whole  history  of  his  life, 
shows.  Probably  he  sacrificed  much  to 
the  known  sentiments  of  others,  and  ad 
dressed  to  his  followers  motives  likely  to 
influence  them.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
evident  that  he  himself  looked  upon  the 
world  which  he  discovered  as  a  world  of 
wealth,  all  ready  to  be  seized  and  en 
joyed. 

The  conquerors  and  the  European 
settlers  of  Spanish  America  were  mainly 
military  commanders  and  common  sol 
diers.  The  monarchy  of  Spain  was  not 
transferred  to  this  hemisphere,  but  it 
acted  in  it,  as  it  acted  at  home,  through 
its  ordinary  means,  and  its  true  repre 
sentative,  military  force.  The  robbery 
and  destruction  of  the  native  race  was 
the  achievement  of  standing  armies,  in 
the  right  of  the  king,  and  by  his  au 
thority,  fighting  in  his  name,  for  the 
aggrandizement  of  his  power  and  the  ex 
tension  of  his  prerogatives,  with  military 
ideas  under  arbitrary  maxims,  —  a  por 
tion  of  that  dreadful  instrumentality  by 
which  a  perfect  despotism  governs  a 
people.  As  there  was  no  liberty  in 
Spain,  how  could  liberty  be  transmitted 
to  Spanish  colonies? 

The  colonists  of  English  America 
were  of  the  people,  and  a  people  already 
free.  They  were  of  the  middle,  indus 
trious,  and  already  prosperous  class,  the 
inhabitants  of  commercial  and  manu 
facturing  cities,  among  whom  liberty 
first  revived  and  respired,  after  a  sleep 
of  a  thousand  years  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Dark  Ages.  Spain  descended  on  the 
New  World  in  the  armed  and  terrible 
image  of  her  monarchy  and  her  soldiery ; 
England  approached  it  in  the  winning 
and  popular  garb  of  personal  rights, 
public  protection,  and  civil  freedom. 
England  transplanted  liberty  to  Amer 
ica;  Spain  transplanted  power.  Eng 
land,  through  the  agency  of  private 
companies  and  the  efforts  of  individuals, 
colonized  this  part  of  North  America 
by  industrious  individuals,  making  their 
own  way  in  the  wilderness,  defending 
themselves  against  the  savages,  recog 


nizing  their  right  to  the  soil,  and  with  a 
general  honest  purpose  of  introducing 
knowledge  as  well  as  Christianity  among 
them.  Spain  stooped  on  South  America, 
like  a  vulture  on  its  prey.  Every  thing 
was  force.  Territories  were  acquired  by 
fire  and  sword.  Cities  were  destroyed 
by  fire  and  sword.  Hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  human  beings  fell  by  fire  and 
sword.  Even  conversion  to  Christianity 
was  attempted  by  fire  and  sword. 

Behold,  then,  fellow-citizens,  the  dif 
ference  resulting  from  the  operation  of 
the  two  principles!  Here,  to-day,  on 
the  summit  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  at  the 
foot  of  this  monument,  behold  the  dif 
ference  !  I  would  that  the  fifty  thousand 
voices  present  could  proclaim  it  with  a 
shout  which  should  be  heard  over  the 
globe.  Our  inheritance  was  of  liberty, 
secured  and  regulated  by  law,  and  en 
lightened  by  religion  and  knowledge; 
that  of  South  America  was  of  power, 
stern,  unrelenting,  tyrannical,  military 
power.  And  now  look  to  the  conse 
quences  of  the  two  principles  on  the 
general  and  aggregate  happiness  of  the 
human  race.  Behold  the  results,  in  all 
the  regions  conquered  by  Cortez  and 
Pizarro,  and  the  contrasted  results  here. 
I  suppose  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  may  amount  to  one  eighth,  or 
one  tenth,  of  that  colonized  by  Spain 
on  this  continent ;  and  yet  in  all  that 
vast  region  there  are  but  between  one 
and  two  millions  of  people  of  Euro 
pean  color  and  European  blood,  while 
in  the  United  States  there  are  four 
teen  millions  who  rejoice  in  their  de 
scent  from  the  people  of  the  more 
northern  part  of  Europe. 

But  we  may  follow  the  difference  in 
the  original  principle  of  colonization, 
and  in  its  character  and  objects,  still 
further.  We  must  look  to  moral  and 
intellectual  results;  we  must  consider 
consequences,  not  only  as  they  show 
themselves  in  hastening  or  retarding  the 
increase  of  population  and  the  supply  of 
physical  wants,  but  in  their  civilization, 
improvement,  and  happiness.  We  must 
inquire  what  progress  has  been  made 
in  the  true  science  of  liberty,  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  great  principles  of  self- 


10 


146 


COMPLETION  OF  THE   BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT. 


government,  and  in  the  progress  of  man, 
as  a  social,  moral,  and  religious  being. 

I  would  not  willingly  say  any  thing 
on  this  occasion  discourteous  to  the  new 
governments  founded  on  the  demolition 
of  the  power  of  the  Spanish  monarchy. 
They  are  yet  on  their  trial,  and  I  hope 
for  a  favorable  result.  But  truth,  sacred 
truth,  and  fidelity  to  the  cause  of  civil 
liberty,  compel  me  to  say,  that  hitherto 
they  have  discovered  quite  too  much  of 
the  spirit  of  that  monarchy  from  which 
they  separated  themselves.  Quite  too 
frequent  resort  is  made  to  military  force ; 
and  quite  too  much  of  the  substance  of 
the  people  is  consumed  in  maintaining 
armies,  not  for  defence  against  foreign 
aggression,  but  for  enforcing  obedience 
to  domestic  authority.  Standing  armies 
are  the  oppressive  instruments  for  gov 
erning  the  people,  in  the  hands  of  heredi 
tary  and  arbitrary  monarchs.  A  military 
republic,  a  government  founded  on  mock 
elections  and  supported  only  by  the  sword, 
is  a  movement  indeed,  but  a  retrograde 
and  disastrous  movement,  from  the  reg 
ular  and  old-fashioned  monarchical  sys 
tems.  Tf  men  would  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  republican  government,  they  must  gov 
ern  themselves  by  reason,  by  mutual  coun 
sel  and  consultation,  by  a  sense  and  feeling 
of  general  interest,  and  by  the  acquies 
cence  of  the  minority  in  the  will  of  the 
majority,  properly  expressed;  and,  above 
all,  the  military  must  be  kept,  according 
to  the  language  of  our  Bill  of  Rights,  in 
strict  subordination  to  the  civil  author 
ity.  Wherever  this  lesson  is  not  both 
learned  and  practised,  there  can  be  no 
political  freedom.  Absurd,  preposter 
ous  is  it,  a  scoff  and  a  satire  on  free 
forms  of  constitutional  liberty,  for 
frames  of  government  to  be  prescribed 
by  military  leaders,  and  the  right  of 
suffrage  to  be  exercised  at  the  point  of 
the  sword. 

Making  all  allowance  for  situation 
and  climate,  it  cannot  be  doubted  by 
intelligent  minds,  that  the  difference 
now  existing  between  North  and  South 
America  is  justly  attributable,  in  a  great 
degree,  to  political  institutions  in  the 
Old  World  and  in  the  New.  And  how 
broad  that  difference  is  !  Suppose  an 


assembly,  in  one  of  the  valleys  or  on  the 
side  of  one  of  the  mountains  of  the 
southern  half  of  the  hemisphere,  to  be 
held,  this  day,  in  the  neighborhood  of  a 
large  city;  —  what  would  be  the  scene 
presented?  Yonder  is  a  volcano,  nam 
ing  and  smoking,  but  shedding  no  light, 
moral  or  intellectual.  At  its  foot  is  the 
mine,  sometimes  yielding,  perhaps,  large 
gains  to  capital,  but  in  which  labor  is 
destined  to  eternal  and  unrequited  toil, 
and  followed  only  by  penury  and  beg 
gary.  The  city  is  filled  with  armed 
men;  not  a  free  people,  armed  and  com 
ing  forth  voluntarily  to  rejoice  in  a  public 
festivity,  but  hireling  troops,  supported 
by  forced  loans,  excessive  impositions  on 
commerce,  or  taxes  wrung  from  a  half- 
fed  and  a  half-clothed  population.  For 
the  great  there  are  palaces  covered  with 
gold;  for  the  poor  there  are  hovels  of 
the  meanest  sort.  There  is  an  ecclesias 
tical  hierarchy,  enjoying  the  wealth  of 
princes ;  but  there  are  no  means  of  edu 
cation  for  the  people.  Do  public  im 
provements  favor  intercourse  between 
place  and  place?  So  far  from  this,  the 
traveller  cannot  pass  from  town  to  town, 
without  danger,  every  mile,  of  robbery 
and  assassination.  I  would  not  over 
charge  or  exaggerate  this  picture;  but 
its  principal  features  are  all  too  truly 
sketched. 

And  how  does  it  contrast  with  the 
scene  now  actually  before  us?  Look 
round  upon  these  fields;  they  are  ver 
dant  and  beautiful,  well  cultivated,  and 
at  this  moment  loaded  with  the  riches  of 
the  early  harvest.  The  hands  which  till 
them  are  those  of  the  free  owners  of 
the  soil,  enjoying  equal  rights,  and  pro 
tected  by  law  from  oppression  and  tyr 
anny.  Look  to  the  thousand  vessels  in 
our  sight,  filling  the  harbor,  or  covering 
the  neighboring  sea.  They  are  the 
vehicles  of  a  profitable  commerce,  car 
ried  on  by  men  who  know  that  the  profits 
of  their  hardy  enterprise,  when  they 
make  them,  are  their  own;  and  this 
commerce  is  encouraged  and  regulated 
by  wise  laws,  and  defended,  when  need 
be,  by  the  valor  and  patriotism  of  the 
country.  Look  to  that  fair  city,  the 
abode  of  so  much  diffused  wealth,  so 


COMPLETION  OF  THE  BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


147 


much  general  happiness  and  comfort, 
so  much  personal  independence,  and  so 
much  general  knowledge,  and  not  un 
distinguished,  I  may  be  permitted  to 
add,  for  hospitality  and  social  refine 
ment.  She  fears  no  forced  contribu 
tions,  no  siege  or  sacking  from  military 
leaders  of  rival  factions.  The  hundred 
temples  in  which  her  citizens  worship 
God  are  in  no  danger  of  sacrilege.  The 
regular  administration  of  the  laws  en 
counters  no  obstacle.  The  long  proces 
sions  of  children  and  youth,  which  you 
see  this  day,  issuing  by  thousands  from 
her  free  schools,  prove  the  care  and 
anxiety  with  which  a  popular  govern 
ment  provides  for  the  education  and 
morals  of  the  people.  Everywhere  there 
i§  order;  everywhere  there  is  security. 
Everywhere  the  law  reaches  to  the 
highest  and  reaches  to  the  lowest,  to 
protect  all  in  their  rights,  and  to  re 
strain  all  from  wrong;  and  over  all 
hovers  liberty,  —  that  liberty  for  which 
our  fathers  fought  and  fell  on  this  very 
spot,  with  her  eye  ever  watchful,  and 
her  eagle  wing  ever  wide  outspread. 

The  colonies  of  Spain,  from  their 
origin  to  their  end,  were  subject  to  the 
sovereign  authority  of  the  mother  coun 
try.  Their  government,  as  well  as  their 
commerce,  was  a  strict  home  monopoly. 
If  we  add  to  this  the  established  usage 
of  filling  important  posts  in  the  admin 
istration  of  the  colonies  exclusively  by 
natives  of  Old  Spain,  thus  cutting  off 
for  ever  all  hopes  of  honorable  prefer 
ment  from  every  man  born  in  the  West 
ern  hemisphere,  causes  enough  rise  up 
before  us  at  once  to  account  fully  for 
the  subsequent  history  and  character  of 
these  provinces.  The  viceroys  and  pro 
vincial  governors  of  Spain  were  never  at 
home  in  their  governments  in  America. 
They  did  not  feel  that  they  were  of 
the  people  whom  they  governed.  Their 
official  character  and  employment  have 
a  good  deal  of  resemblance  to  those  of 
the  proconsuls  of  Rome,  in  Asia,  Sicily, 
and  Gaul;  but  obviously  no  resemblance 
to  those  of  Carver  and  Winthrop,  and 
very  little  to  those  of  the  governors  of 
Virginia  after  that  Colony  had  estab 
lished  a  popular  House  of  Burgesses. 


The  English  colonists  in  America, 
generally  speaking,  were  men  who  were 
seeking  new  homes  in  a  new  world. 
They  brought  with  them  their  families 
and  all  that  was  most  dear  to  them. 
This  was  especially  the  case  with  the 
colonists  of  Plymouth  and  Massachu 
setts.  Many  of  them  were  educated 
men,  and  all  possessed  their  full  share, 
according  to  their  social  condition,  of 
the  knowledge  and  attainments  of  that 
age.  The  distinctive  characteristic  of 
their  settlement  is  the  introduction  of 
the  civilization  of  Europe  into  a  wil 
derness,  without  bringing  with  it  the 
political  institutions  of  Europe.  The 
arts,  sciences,  and  literature  of  England 
came  over  with  the  settlers.  That  great 
portion  of  the  common  law  which  regu 
lates  the  social  and  personal  relations  and 
conduct  of  men,  came  also.  The  jury 
came :  the  habeas  corpus  came ;  the  tes 
tamentary  power  came;  and  the  law  of 
inheritance  and  descent  came  also,  except 
that  part  of  it  which  recognizes  the  rights 
of  primogeniture,  which  either  did  not 
come  at  all,  or  soon  gave  way  to  the  rule 
of  equal  partition  of  estates  among  chil 
dren.  But  the  monarchy  did  not  come, 
nor  the  aristocracy,  nor  the  church,  as 
an  estate  of  the  realm.  Political  insti 
tutions  were  to  be  framed  anew,  such  as 
should  be  adapted  to  the  state  of  things. 
But  it  could  not  be  doubtful  what  should 
be  the  nature  and  character  of  these  in 
stitutions-.  A  general  social  equality 
prevailed  among  the  settlers,  and  an 
equality  of  political  rights  seemed  the 
natural,  if  not  the  necessary  conse 
quence.  After  forty  years  of  revolution, 
violence,  and  war,  the  people  of  France 
have  placed  at  the  head  of  the  funda 
mental  instrument  of  their  government, 
as  the  great  boon  obtained  by  all  their 
sufferings  and  sacrifices,  the  declaration 
that  all  Frenchmen  are  equal  before  the 
law.  What  France  has  reached  only  by 
the  expenditure  of  so  much  blood  and 
treasure,  and  the  perpetration  of  so  much 
crime,  the  English  colonists  obtained 
by  simply  changing  their  place,  carrying 
with  them  the  intellectual  and  moral 
culture  of  Europe,  and  the  personal  and 
social  relations  to  which  they  were  accus- 


148 


COMPLETION  OF   THE  BUNKER   HILL  MONUMENT. 


tomed,  but  leaving  behind  their  polit 
ical  institutions.  It  has  been  said  with 
much  vivacity,  that  the  felicity  of  the 
American  colonists  consisted  in  their  es 
cape  from  the  past.  This  is  true  so  far 
as  respects  political  establishments,  but 
no  further.  They  brought  with  them  a 
full  portion  of  all  the  riches  of  the  past, 
in  science,  in  art,  in  morals,  religion, 
and  literature.  The  Bible  came  with 
them.  And  it  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that 
to  the  free  and  universal  reading  of  the 
Bible,  in  that  age,  men  were  much  in 
debted  for  right  views  of  civil  liberty. 
The  Bible  is  a  book  of  faith,  and  a 
book  of  doctrine,  and  a  book  of  morals, 
and  a  book  of  religion,  of  especial  reve 
lation  from  God;  but  it  is  also  a  book 
which  teaches  man  his  own  individual 
responsibility,  his  own  dignity,  and  his 
equality  with  his  fellow-man. 

Bacon  and  Locke,  and  Shakspeare 
and  Milton,  also  came  with  the  colonists. 
It  was  the  object  of  the  first  settlers 
to  form  new  political  systems,  but  all 
that  belonged  to  cultivated  man,  to  fam 
ily,  to  neighborhood,  to  social  relations, 
accompanied  them.  In  the  Doric  phrase 
of  one  of  our  own  historians,  "  they 
came  to  settle  on  bare  creation";  but 
their  settlement  in  the  wilderness,  never 
theless,  was  not  a  lodgement  of  nomadic 
tribes,  a  mere  resting-place  of  roaming 
savages.  It  was  the  beginning  of  a  per 
manent  community,  the  fixed  residence 
of  cultivated  men.  Not  only 'was  Eng 
lish  literature  read,  but  English,  good 
English,  was  spoken  and  written,  before 
the  axe  had  made  way  to  let  in  the  sun 
upon  the  habitations  and  fields  of  Ply 
mouth  and  Massachusetts.  And  what 
ever  may  be  said  to  the  contrary,  a 
correct  use  of  the  English  language  is, 
at  this  day,  more  general  throughout 
the  United  States,  than  it  is  throughout 
England  herself. 

But  another  grand  characteristic  is, 
that,  in  the  English  colonies,  political 
affairs  were  left  to  be  managed  by  the 
colonists  themselves.  This  is  another 
fact  wholly  distinguishing  them  in  char 
acter,  as  it  has  distinguished  them  in 
fortune,  from  the  colonists  of  Spain. 
Here  lies  the  foundation  of  that  expe 


rience  in  self-government,  which  has 
preserved  order,  and  security,  and  reg 
ularity,  amidst  the  play  of  popular  insti- 
tutions%  Home  government  was  the 
secret  of  the  prosperity  of  the  North 
American  settlements.  The  more  dis 
tinguished  of  the  New  England  colonists, 
with  a  most  remarkable  sagacity  and  a 
long-sighted  reach  into  futurity,  refused 
to  come  to  America  unless  they  could 
bring  with  them  charters  providing  for 
the  administration  of  their  affairs  in 
this  country.1  They  saw  from  the  first 
the  evils  of  being  governed  in  the  New 
World  by  a  power  fixed  in  the  Old. 
Acknowledging  the  general  superiority 
of  the  crown,  they  still  insisted  on  the 
right  of  passing  local  laws,  and  of  local 
administration.  And  history  teaches  us 
the  justice  and  the  value  of  this  deter 
mination  in  the  example  of  Virginia. 
The  early  attempts  to  settle  that  Colony 
failed,  sometimes  with  the  most  melan 
choly  and  fatal  consequences,  from  want 
of  knowledge,  care,  and  attention ,on  the 
part  of  those  who  had  the  charge  of 
their  affairs  in  England ;  and  it  was  only 
after  the  issuing  of  the  third  charter, 
that  its  prosperity  fairly  commenced. 
The  cause  was,  that  by  that  third 
charter  the  people  of  Virginia,  for  by 
this  time  they  deserved  to  be  so  called, 
were  allowed  to  constitute  and  estab 
lish  the  first  popular  representative 
assembly  which  ever  convened  on  this 
continent,  the  Virginia  House  of  Bur 
gesses. 

The  great  elements,  then,  of  the 
American  system  of  government,  origi 
nally  introduced  by  the  colonists,  and 
which  were  early  in  operation,  and  ready 
to  be  developed,  more  and  more,  as  the 
progress  of  events  should  justify  or  de 
mand,  were,  — 

Escape  from  the  existing  political  sys 
tems  of  Europe,  including  its  religious 
hierarchies,  but  the  continued  possession 
and  enjoyment  of  its  science  and  arts, 
its  literature,  and  its  manners; 

Home  government,  or  the  power  of 

1  See  the  "Records  of  the  Company  of  the 
Massachusetts  Ray  in  New  England,"  as  pub 
lished  in  the  third  volume  of  the  Transactions 
of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  pp.  47-50. 


COMPLETION  OF  THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT. 


149 


making  in  the  colony  the  municipal  laws 
which  were  to  govern  it; 

Equality  of  rights ; 

Representative  assemblies  %  or  forms  of 
government  founded  on  popular  elec 
tions. 

Few  topics  are  more  inviting,  or  more 
fit  for  philosophical  discussion,  than  the 
effect  on  the  happiness  of  mankind  of 
institutions  founded  upon  these  princi 
ples;  or,  in  other  words,  the  influence 
of  the  New  World  upon  the  Old. 

Her  obligations  to  Europe  for  science 
and  art,  laws,  literature,  and  manners, 
America  acknowledges  as  she  ought, 
with  respect  and  gratitude.  The  people 
of  the  United  States,  descendants  of  the 
English  stock,  grateful  for  the  treasures 
of  knowledge  derived  from  their  English 
ancestors,  admit  also,  with  thanks  and 
filial  regard,  that  among  those  ancestors, 
under  the  culture  of  Hampden  and  Syd 
ney  and  other  assiduous  friends,  that 
seed  of  popular  liberty  first  germinated, 
which  on  our  soil  has  shot  up  to  its  full 
height,  until  its  branches  overshadow 
all  the  land. 

But  America  has  not  failed  to  make 
returns.  If  she  has  not  wholly  cancelled 
the  obligation,  or  equalled  it  by  others 
of  like  weight,  she  has,  at  least,  made 
respectable  advances  towards  repaying 
the  debt.  And  she  admits,  that,  stand 
ing  in  the  midst  of  civilized  nations,  and 
in  a  civilized  age,  a  nation  among  na 
tions,  there  is  a  high  part  which  she  is 
expected  to  act,  for  the  general  advance 
ment  of  human  interests  and  human 
welfare. 

American  mines  have  filled  the  mints 
of  Europe  with  the  precious  metals. 
The  productions  of  the  American  soil 
and  climate  have  poured  out  their  abun 
dance  of  luxuries  for  the  tables  of  the 
rich,  and  of  necessaries  for  the  suste 
nance  of  the  poor.  Birds  and  animals  of 
beauty  and  value  have  been  added  to  the 
European  stocks;  and  transplantations 
from  the  unequalled  riches  of  our  forests 
have  mingled  themselves  profusely  with 
the  elms,  and  ashes,  and  Druidical  oaks 
of  England. 

America  has  made  contributions  to 


Europe  far  more  important.  Who  can 
estimate  the  amount,  or  the  value,  of 
the  augmentation  of  the  commerce  of 
the  world  that  has  resulted  from  Amer 
ica?  Who  can  imagine  to  himself  what 
would  now  be  the  shock  to  the  East 
ern  Continent,  if  the  Atlantic  were  no 
longer  traversable,  or  if  there  were  no 
longer  American  productions,  or  Amer 
ican  markets? 

But  America  exercises  influences,  or 
holds  out  examples,  for  the  considera 
tion  of  the  Old  World,  of  a  much 
higher,  because  they  are  of  a  moral  and 
political  character. 

America  has  furnished  to  Europe  proof 
of  the  fact,  that  popular  institutions, 
founded  on  equality  and  the  principle  of 
representation,  are  capable  of  maintain 
ing  governments,  able  to  secure  the 
rights  of  person,  property,  and  reputa 
tion. 

America  has  proved  that  it  is  practi 
cable  to  elevate  the  mass  of  mankind, 
—  that  portion  which  in  Europe  is 
called  the  laboring,  or  lower  class, — to 
raise  them  to  self-respect,  to  make  them 
competent  to  act  a  part  in  the  great 
right  and  great  duty  of  self-government; 
and  she  has  proved  that  this  may  be  done 
by  education  and  the  diffusion  of  knowl 
edge.  She  holds  out  an  example,  a  thou 
sand  times  more  encouraging  than  ever 
was  presented  before,  to  those  nine  tenths 
of  the  human  race  who  are  born  without 
hereditary  fortune  or  hereditary  rank. 

America  has  furnished  to  the  world 
the  character  of  Washington!  And  if 
our  American  institutions  had  done 
nofHmg  'else,  that  alone  would  have 
entitled  them  to  the  respect  of  man 
kind - 

Washington!  "First  in  war,  first 
in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen!"  Washington  is  all  our 
own!  The  enthusiastic  veneration  and 
regard  in  which  the  people  of  the  United 
States  hold  him,  prove  them  to  be  wor 
thy  of  such  a  countryman;  while  his 
reputation  abroad  reflects  the  highest 
honor  on  his  country.  I  would  cheer 
fully  put  the  question  to-day  to  the 
intelligence  of  Europe  and  the  world, 
what  character  of  the  century,  upon  the 


150 


COMPLETION   OF  THE   BUNKER   HILL   MONUMENT. 


whole,  stands  out  in  the  relief  of  his 
tory,  most  pure,  most  respectable,  most 
sublime;  and  I  doubt  not,  that,  by  a 
suffrage  approaching  to  unanimity,  the 
answer  would  be  Washington! 

The  structure  now  standing  before  us, 
by  its  uprightness,  its  solidity,  its  dura 
bility,  is  no  unfit  emblem  of  his  char 
acter.  His  public  virtues  and  public 
principles  were  as  firm  as  the  earth  on 
which  it  stands;  his  personal  motives, 
as  pure  as  the  serene  heaven  in  which 
its  summit  is  lost.  But,  indeed,  though 
a  fit,  it  is  an  inadequate  emblem.  Tow 
ering  high  above  the  column  which  our 
hands  have  builded,  beheld,  not  by  the 
inhabitants  of  a  single  city  or  a  single 
State,  but  by  all  the  families  of  man, 
ascends  the  colossal  grandeur  of  the 
character  and  life  of  Washington.  In 
all  the  constituents  of  the  one,  in  all  the 
acts  of  the  other,  in  all  its  titles  to  im 
mortal  love,  admiration,  and  renown,  it 
is  an  American  production.  It  is  the 
embodiment  and  vindication  of  our 
Transatlantic  liberty.  Born  upon  our 
soil,  of  parents  also  born  upon  it;  never 
for  a  moment  having  had  sight  of  the 
Old  World;  instructed,  according  to  the 
modes  of  his  time,  only  in  the  spare, 
plain,  but  wholesome  elementary  knowl 
edge  which  our  institutions  provide  for 
the  children  of  the  people;  growing  up 
beneath  and  penetrated  by  the  genuine 
influences  of  American  society;  living 
from  infancy  to  manhood  and  age 
amidst  our  expanding,  but  not  luxurious 
civilization ;  partaking  in  our  great  des 
tiny  of  labor,  our  long  contest  with  un 
reclaimed  nature  and  uncivilized  man, 
our  agony  of  glory,  the  war  of  Indepen 
dence,  our  great  victory  of  peace,  the 
formation  of  the  Union,  and  the  es 
tablishment  of  the  Constitution,  —  he  is 
all,  all  our  own!  Washington  is  ours. 
That  crowded  and  glorious  life, 

"  Where  multitudes  of  virtues  passed  along, 
Each  pressing  foremost,  in  the  might v  throng 
Ambitious  to  be  seen,  thc-n  making  room 
For  greater  multitudes  that  were  to  come,"  — 

that  life  was  the  life  of  an  American 
citizen. 

I  claim  him  for  America.     In  all  the 


perils,  in  every  darkened  moment  of  the 
state,  in  the  midst  of  the  reproaches  of 
enemies  and  the  misgiving  of  friends,  I 
turn  to  tli at  transcendent  name  for  cour 
age  and  for  consolation.  To  him  who 
denies  or  doubts  whether  our  fervid  lib 
erty  can  be  combined  with  law,  with 
order,  with  the  security  of  property,  with 
the  pursuits  and  advancement  of  happi 
ness  ;  to  him  who  denies  that  our  forms 
of  government  are  capable  of  producing 
exaltation  of  soul,  and  the  passion  of 
true  glory;  to  him  who  denies  that  we 
have  contributed  any  thing  to  the  stock 
of  great  lessons  and  great  examples ;  — 
to  all  these  I  reply  by  pointing  to  Wash 
ington  ! 

And  now,  friends  and  fellow-citizens, 
it  is  time  to  bring  this  discourse  to  a 
close. 

We  have  indulged  in  gratifying  recol 
lections  of  the  past,  in  the  prosperity 
and  pleasures  of  the  present,  and  in  high 
hopes  for  the  future.  But  let  us  remem 
ber  that  we  have  duties  and  obligations 
to  perform,  corresponding  to  the  bless 
ings  which  we  enjoy.  Let  us  remember 
the  trust,  the  sacred  trust,  attaching  to 
the  rich  inheritance  which  we  have  re 
ceived  from  our  fathers.  Let  us  feel  our 
personal  responsibility,  to  the  full  extent 
of  our  power  and  influence,  for  the  pres 
ervation  of  the  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty.  And  let  us  remember 
that  it  is  only  religion,  and  morals,  and 
knowledge,  that  can  make  men  respecta 
ble  and  happy,  under  any  form  of  govern 
ment.  Let  us  hold  fast  the  great  truth, 
that  communities  are  responsible,  as 
well  as  individuals;  that  no  government 
is  respectable,  which  is  not  just;  that 
without  unspotted  purity  of  public  faith, 
without  sacred  public  principle,  fidelity, 
and  honor,  no  mere  forms  of  govern 
ment,  no  machinery  of  laws,  can  give 
dignity  to  political  society.  In  our  day 
and  generation  let  us  seek  to  raise  and 
improve  the  moral  sentiment,  so  that  we 
may  look,  not  for  a  degraded,  but  for 
an  elevated  and  improved  future.  And 
when  both  we  and  our  children  shall 
have  been  consigned  to  the  house  ap 
pointed  for  all  living,  may  love  of  coun- 


COMPLETION   OF  THE  BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT. 


151 


try  and  pride  of  country  glow  with  equal 
fervor  among  those  to  whom  our  names 
and  our  blood  shall  have  descended! 
'.  And  then,  when  honored  and  decrepit 
age  shall  lean  against  the  base  of  this 
monument,  and  troops  of  ingenuous  youth 
shall  be  gathered  round  it,  and  when 


the  one  shall  speak  to  the  other  of  its 
objects,  the  purposes  of  its  construction, 
and  the  great  and  glorious  events  with 
which  it  is  connected,  there  shall  rise 
from  every  youthful  breast  the  ejacula 
tion,  "  Thank  God,  I  — I  also  —  AM  AN 
AMERICAN!  " 


NOTE. 


Page  139. 

THE  following  description  of  the  Bunker 
Hill  Monument  and  Square  is  from  Mr. 
Frothingham's  History  of  the  Siege  of  Bos 
ton,  pp.  355,  356. 

"Monument  Square  is  four  hundred  and 
seventeen  feet  from  north  to  south,  and  four 
hundred  feet  from  east  to  west,  and  contains 
nearly  six  acres.  It  embraces  the  whole  site  of 
the  redoubt,  and  a  part  of  the  site  of  the  breast 
work.  According  to  the  most  accurate  plan  of 
the  town  and  the  battle  (Page's),  the  monument 
stands  where  the  southwest  angle  of  the  redoubt 
was,  and  the  whole  of  the  redoubt  was  between 
the  monument  and  the  street  that  bounds  it  on 
the  west.  The  small  mound  in  the  northeast 
corner  of  the  square  is  supposed  to  be  the  re 
mains  of  the  breastwork.  Warren  fell  about 


two  hundred  feet  west  of  the  monument.  An 
iron  fence  encloses  the  square,  and  another  sur 
rounds  the  monument.  The  square  has  en 
trances  on  each  of  its  sides,  and  at  each  of  its 
corners,  and  is  surrounded  by  a  walk  and  rows  of 
trees. 

"  The  obelisk  is  thirty  feet  in  diameter  at  the 
base,  about  fifteen  feet  at  the  top  of  the  trun 
cated  part,  and  was  designed  to  be  two  hundred 
and  twenty  feet  high  ;  but  the  mortar  and  the 
seams  between  the  stones  make  the  precise 
height  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  feet.  With 
in  the  shaft  is  a  hollow  cone,  with  a  spiral  stair 
way  winding  round  it  to  its  summit,  which 
enters  a  circular  chamber  at  the  top.  There  are 
ninety  courses  of  stone  in  the  shaft,  —  six  of 
them"  below  the  ground,  and  eighty-four  above 
the  ground.  The  capstone,  or  apex,  is  a  single 
stone  four  feet  square  at  the  base,  and  three  feet 
six  inches  in  height,  weighing  two  aiid  a  half 
tons." 


OUR    RELATIONS    TO    THE    SOUTH    AMERICAN 
REPUBLICS. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  SPEECH  ON  "  THE  PANAMA  MISSION,"  DELIVERED  IN 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  UTH 
OF  APRIL,  1826. 


IT  has  been  affirmed,  that  this  meas 
ure,  and  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the 
Executive  relative  to  its  objects,  are  an 
acknowledged  departure  from  the  neu 
tral  policy  of  the  United  States.  Sir, 
I  deny  that  there  is  an  acknowledged 
departure,  or  any  departure  at  all,  from 
the  neutral  policy  of  the  country.  What 
do  we  mean  by  our  neutral  policy?  Not, 
I  suppose,  a  blind  and  stupid  indiffer 
ence  to  whatever  is  passing  around  us; 
not  a  total  disregard  to  approaching 
events,  or  approaching  evils,  till  they 
meet  us  full  in  the  face.  NOT  do  we 
mean,  by  our  neutral  policy,  that  we  in 
tend  never  to  assert  our  rights  by  force. 
No,  Sir.  We  mean  by  our  policy  of  neu 
trality,  that  the  great  objects  of  national 
pursuit  with  us  are  connected  with  peace. 
We  covet  no  provinces ;  we  desire  no  con 
quests;  we  entertain  no  ambitious  proj 
ects  of  aggrandizement  by  war.  This  is 
our  policy.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this,  that  we  rely  less  than  other  nations 
on  our  own  power  to  vindicate  our  own 
rights.  We  know  that  the  last  logic  of 
kings  is  also  our  last  logic ;  that  our  own 
interests  must  be  defended  and  main 
tained  by  our  own  arm ;  and  that  peace  or 
war  may  not  always  be  of  our  own  choos 
ing.  Our  neutral  policy,  therefore,  not 
only  justifies,  but  requires,  our  anxious 
attention  to  the  political  events  which 
take  place  in  the  world,  a  skilful  percep 
tion  of  their  relation  to  our  own  concerns, 
and  an  early  anticipation  of  their  conse 
quences,  and  firm  and  timely  assertion  of 
what  we  hold  to  be  our  own  rights  and 


our  own  interests.  Our  neutrality  is  not 
a  predetermined  abstinence,  either  from 
remonstrances,  or  from  force.  Our  neu 
tral  policy  is  a  policy  that  protects  neu 
trality,  that  defends  neutrality,  that 
takes  up  arms,  if  need  be,  for  neutral 
ity.  When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that 
this  measure  departs  from  our  neutral 
policy,  either  that  policy,  or  the  measure 
itself,  is  misunderstood.  It  implies  either 
that  the  object  or  the  tendency  of  the 
measure  is  to  involve  us  in  the  war  of 
other  states,  which  I  think  cannot  be 
shown,  or  that  the  assertion  of  our  own 
sentiments,  on  points  affecting  deeply 
our  own  interests,  may  place  us  in  a  hos 
tile  attitude  toward  other  states,  and 
that  therefore  we  depart  from  neutral 
ity;  whereas  the  truth  is,  that  the  deci 
sive  assertion  and  the  firm  support  of 
these  sentiments  may  be  most  essential 
to  the  maintenance  of  neutrality. 

An  honorable  member  from  Pennsyl 
vania  thinks  this  congress  will  bring  a 
dark  day  over  the  United  States.  Doubt 
less,  Sir,  it  is  an  interesting  moment  in 
our  history;  but  I  see  no  great  proofs  of 
thick-coming  darkness.  But  the  object 
of  the  remark  seemed  to  be  to  show  that 
the  President  himself  saw  difficulties  on 
all  sides,  and,  making  a  choice  of  evils, 
preferred  rather  to  send  ministers  to  this 
congress,  than  to  run  the  risk  of  exciting 
the  hostility  of  the  states  by  refusing  to 
send.  In  other  words,  the  gentleman 
wished  to  prove  that  the  President  in 
tended  an  alliance ;  although  such  inten 
tion  is  expressly  disclaimed. 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 


153 


Much  commentary  has  been  bestowed 
on  the  letters  of  invitation  from  the  min 
isters.  1  shall  not  go  through  with  ver 
bal  criticisms  on  these  letters.  Their 
general  import  is  plain  enough.  I  shall 
not  gather  together  small  and  minute 
quotations,  taking  a  sentence  here,  a 
word  there,  and  a  syllable  in  a  third 
place,  dovetailing  them  into  the  course 
of  remark,  till  the  printed  discourse 
bristles  in  every  line  with  inverted  com 
mas.  I  look  to  the  general  tenor  of  the 
invitations,  and  I  find  that  we  are  asked 
to  take  part  only  in  such  things  as  con 
cern  ourselves.  I  look  still  more  care 
fully  to  the  answers,  and  I  see  every 
proper  caution  and  proper  guard.  I  look 
to  the  message,  and  I  see  that  nothing  is 
there  contemplated  likely  to  involve  us 
in  other  men's  quarrels,  or  that  may 
justly  give  offence  to  any  foreign  state. 
With  this  I  arn  satisfied. 

I  must  now  ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
committee  to  an  important  point  in  the 
discussion,  I  mean  the  declaration  of 
the  President  in  1823. l  Not  only  as  a 
member  of  the  House,  but  as  a  citizen 
of  the  country,  I  have  an  anxious  de 
sire  that  this  part  of  our  public  history 
should  stand  in  its  proper  light.  The 
country  has,  in  my  judgment,  a  very 
high  honor  connected  with  that  occur 
rence,  which  we  may  maintain,  or  which 
we  may  sacrifice.  I  look  upon  it  as  a 
part  of  its  treasures  of  reputation;  and, 
for  one,  I  intend  to  guard  it. 

1  In  the  message  of  President  Monroe  to 
Congress  at  the  commencement  of  the  session 
of  1823-24,  the  following  passage  occurs :  — 
"In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers,  in  mat 
ters  relating  to  themselves,  we  have  never 
taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our 
policy  so  to  do.  It  is  only  when  our  rights 
are  invaded,  or  seriously  menaced,  that  we  re 
sent  injuries  or  make  preparations  for  defence. 
With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are 
of  necessity  more  immediately  connected,  and 
by  causes  which  must  be  obvious  to  all  en 
lightened  and  impartial  observers.  The  politi 
cal  system  of  the  Allied  Powers  is  essentially 
different,  in  this  respect,  from  that  of  America. 
This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists 
in  their  respective  governments.  And  to  the 
defence  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved 
by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and 
matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most  enlight- 


Sir,  let  us  recur  to  the  important  po 
litical  events  which  led  to  that  declara 
tion,  or  accompanied  it.  In  the  fall  of 
1822,  the  allied  sovereigns  held  their 
congress  at  Verona.  The  great  subject 
of  consideration  was  the  condition  of 
Spain,  that  country  then  being  under 
the  government  of  the  Cortes.  The  ques 
tion  was,  whether  Ferdinand  should  be 
reinstated  in  all  his  authority,  by  the 
intervention  of  foreign  force.  Russia, 
Prussia,  France,  and  Austria  were  in 
clined  to  that  measure;  England  dis 
sented  and  protested ;  but  the  course  was 
agreed  on,  and  France,  with  the  consent 
of  these  other  Continental  powers,  took 
the  conduct  of  the  operation  into  her 
own  hands.  In  the  spring  of  1823,  a 
French  army  was  sent  into  Spain.  Its 
success  was  complete.  The  popular  gov 
ernment  was  overthrown,  and  Ferdinand 
re-established  in  all  his  power.  This 
invasion,  Sir,  was  determined  on,  and 
undertaken,  precisely  on  the  doctrines 
which  the  allied  monarchs  had  pro 
claimed  the  year  before,  at  Lay  bach; 
that  is,  that  they  had  a  right  to  interfere 
in  the  concerns  of  another  state,  and  re 
form  its  government,  in  order  to  prevent 
the  effects  of  its  bad  example ;  this  bad 
example,  be  it  remembered,  always  be 
ing  the  example  of  free  government. 
Now,  Sir,  acting  on  this  principle  of 
supposed  dangerous  example,  and  hav 
ing  put  down  the  example  of  the  Cortes 
in  Spain,  it  was  natural  to  inquire  with 

ened  citizens,  and  under  which  we  have  en 
joyed  such  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole 
nation  is  devoted.  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to 
candor,  and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing 
between  the  United  States  and  those  powers,  to 
declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on 
their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion 
of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace 
and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  de 
pendencies  of  any  European  power,  we  have 
not  interfered,  and  shall  not  interfere.  But 
with  the  governments  who  have  declared  their 
independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  in 
dependence  we  have  on  great  consideration  and 
on  just  principles  acknowledged,  we  could  not 
view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  op 
pressing  them,  or  controlling  in  any  other  man 
ner  their  destiny,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  to 
ward  the  United  States." 


154 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 


what  eyes  they  would  look  on  the  colo 
nies  of  Spain,  that  were  following  still 
worse  examples.  Would  King  Ferdi 
nand  and  his  allies  be  content  with  what 
had  been  done  in  Spain  itself,  or  would 
he  solicit  their  aid,  and  was  it  likely 
they  would  grant  it,  to  subdue  his  re 
bellious  American  provinces? 

Sir,  it  was  in  this  posture  of  affairs, 
on  an  occasion  which  has  already  been 
alluded  to,  that  I  ventured  to  say,  early 
in  the  session  of  December,  1823,  that 
these  allied  monarchs  might  possibly 
turn  their  attention  to  America;  that 
America  came  within  their  avowed  doc 
trine,  and  that  her  examples  might  very 
possibly  attract  their  notice.  The  doc 
trines  of  Laybach  were  not  limited  to 
any  continent.  Spain  had  colonies  in 
America,  and  having  reformed  Spain 
herself  to  the  true  standard,  it  was  not 
impossible  that  they  might  see  fit  to 
complete  the  work  by  reconciling,  in 
their  way,  the  colonies  to  the  mother 
country.  Now,  Sir,  it  did  so  happen, 
that,  as  soon  as  the  Spanish  king  was 
completely  re-established,  he  invited  the 
co-operation  of  his  allies  in  regard  to 
South  America.  In  the  same  month  of 
December,  of  1823,  a  formal  invitation 
was  addressed  by  Spain  to  the  courts 
of  St.  Petersburg,  Vienna,  Berlin,  and 
Paris,  proposing  to  establish  a  confer 
ence  at  Paris,  in  order  that  the  plenipo 
tentiaries  there  assembled  might  aid 
Spain  in  adjusting  the  affairs  of  her 
revolted  provinces.  These  affairs  were 
proposed  to  be  adjusted  in  such  manner 
as  should  retain  the  sovereignty  of  Spain 
over  them ;  and  though  the  co-operation 
of  the  allies  by  force  of  arms  was  not 
directly  solicited,  such  was  evidently  the 
object  aimed  at.  The  king  of  Spain,  in 
making  this  request  to  the  members  of 
the  Holy  Alliance,  argued  as  it  has  been 
seen  he  might  argue.  He  quoted  their 
own  doctrines  of  Laybach ;  he  pointed 
out  the  pernicious  example  of  America; 
and  he  reminded  them  that  their  success 
in  Spain  itself  had  paved  the  way  for 
successful  operations  against  the  spirit 
of  liberty  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

The  proposed  meeting,  however,  did 
not  take  place.  England  had  already 


taken  a  decided  course ;  for  as  early  as 
October,  Mr.  Canning,  in  a  conference 
with  the  French  minister  in  London, 
informed  him  distinctly  and  expressly, 
that  England  would  consider  any  foreign 
interference,  by  force  or  by  menace,  in 
the  dispute  between  Spain  and  the  colo 
nies,  as  a  motive  for  recognizing  the  lat 
ter  without  delay.  It  is  probable  this 
determination  of  the  English  govern 
ment  was  known  here  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  session  of  Congress;  and  it 
was  under  inese  circumstances,  it  was  in 
this  crisis,  that  Mr.  Monroe's  declara 
tion  was  made.  It  was  not  then  ascer 
tained  whether  a  meeting  of  the  Allies 
would  or  would  not  take  place,  to  con 
cert  with  Spain  the  means  of  re-estab 
lishing  her  power;  but  it  was  plain 
enough  they  would  be  pressed  by  Spain 
to  aid  her  operations;  and  it  was  plain 
enough,  also,  that  they  had  no  particular 
liking  to  what  was  taking  place  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  nor  any  great  disin 
clination  to  interfere.  This  was  the  pos 
ture  of  affairs;  and,  Sir,  I  concur  entirely 
in  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  resolu 
tion  of  a  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,1 
that  this  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  was 
wise,  seasonable,  and  patriotic. 

It  has  been  said,  in  the  course  of  this 
debate,  to  have  been  a  loose  and  vague 
declaration.  It  was,  I  believe,  suffi 
ciently  studied.  I  have  understood, 
from  good  authority,  that  it  was  con 
sidered,  weighed,  and  distinctly  and 
decidedly  approved,  by  every  one  of  the 
President's  advisers  at  that  time.  Our 
government  could  not  adopt  on  that  oc 
casion  precisely  the  course  which  Eng 
land  had  taken.  England  threatened 
the  immediate  recognition  of  the  prov 
inces,  if  the  Allies  should  take  part 
with  Spain  against  them.  We  had  al 
ready  recognized  them.  It  remained, 
therefore,  only  for  our  government  to 
say  how  we  should  consider  a  combina 
tion  of  the  Allied  Powers,  to  effect  ob 
jects  in  America,  as  affecting  ourselves ; 
and  the  message  was  intended  to  say, 
what  it  does  say,  that  we  should  regard 
such  combination  as  dangerous  to  us. 
Sir,  I  agree  with  those  who  maintain  the 
i  Mr.  Marklev. 


THE   PANAMA  MISSION. 


155 


proposition,  and  I  contend  against  those 
who  deny  it,  that  the  message  did  mean 
something ;  that  it  meant  much ;  and  I 
maintain,  against  both,  that  the  declara 
tion  effected  much  good,  answered  the 
end  designed  by  it,  did  great  honor  to 
the  foresight  and  the  spirit  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  that  it  cannot  now  be 
taken  back,  retracted,  or  annulled,  with 
out  disgrace.  It  met,  Sir,  with  the  entire 
concurrence  and  the  hearty  approbation 
of  the  country.  The  tone  which  it 
uttered  found  a  corresponding  response 
in  the  breasts  of  the  free  people  of  the 
United  States.  That  people  saw,  and 
they  rejoiced  to  see,  that,  on  a  fit  occa 
sion,  our  weight  had  been  thrown  into 
the  right  scale,  and  that,  without  de 
parting  from  our  duty,  we  had  done 
something  useful,  and  something  effect 
ual,  for  the  cause  of  civil  liberty.  One 
general  glow  of  exultation,  one  uni 
versal  feeling  of  the  gratified  love  of 
liberty,  one  conscious  and  proud  per 
ception  of  the  consideration  which  the 
country  possessed,  and  of  the  respect 
and  honor  which  belonged  to  it,  per 
vaded  all  bosoms.  Possibly  the  public 
enthusiasm  went  too  far;  it  certainly 
did  go  far.  But,  Sir,  the  sentiment 
which  this  declaration  inspired  was  not 
confined  to  ourselves.  Its  force  was 
felt  everywhere,  by  all  those  who  could 
understand  its  object  and  foresee  its 
effect.  In  that  very  House  of  Com 
mons  of  which  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  has  spoken  with  such 
commendation,  how  was  it  received? 
Not  only,  Sir,  with  approbation,  but,  I 
may  say,  with  no  little  enthusiasm. 
While  the  leading  minister1  expressed 
his  entire  concurrence  in  the  sentiments 
and  opinions  of  the  American  President, 
his  distinguished  competitor  -  in  that 
popular  body,  Jess  restrained  by  official 
decorum,  and  more  at  liberty  to  give 
utterance  to  all  the  feeling  of  the  occa 
sion,  declared  that  no  event  had  ever 
created  greater  joy,  exultation,  and  grat 
itude  among  all  the  free  men  in  Europe ; 
that  he  felt  pride  in  being  connected 
by  blood  and  language  with  the  people 
of  the  United  States;  that  the  policy 
1  Mr.  Canning.  2  Mr.  Brougham. 


disclosed  by  the  message  became  a  great, 
a  free,  and  an  independent  nation;  and 
that  he  hoped  his  own  country  would 
be  prevented  by  no  mean  pride,  or 
paltry  jealousy,  from  following  so  noble 
and  glorious  an  example. 

It  is  doubtless  true,  as  I  took  occa 
sion  to  observe  the  other  day,  that  this 
declaration  must  be  considered  as  found 
ed  on  our  rights,  and  to  spring  mainly 
from  a  regard  to  their  preservation.  It 
did  not  commit  us,  at  all  events,  to  take 
up  arms  on  any  indication  of  hostile 
feeling  by  the  powers  of  Europe  to 
wards  South  America.  If,  for  ex 
ample,  all  the  states  of  Europe  had 
refused  to  trade  with  South  America 
until  her  states  should  return  to  their 
former  allegiance,  that  would  have  fur 
nished  no  cause  of  interference  to  us. 
Or  if  an  armament  had  been  furnished 
by  the  Allies  to  act  against  provinces 
the  most  remote  from  us,  as  Chili  or 
Buenos  Ayres,  the  distance  of  the  scene 
of  action  diminishing  our  apprehension 
of  danger,  and  diminishing  also  our 
means  of  effectual  interposition,  might 
still  have  left  us  to  content  ourselves 
with  remonstrance.  But  a  very  differ 
ent  case  would  have  arisen,  if  an  army, 
equipped  and  maintained  by  these  pow 
ers,  had  been  landed  on  the  shores  of 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  commenced  the 
war  in  our  own  immediate  neighbor 
hood.  Such  an  event  might  justly  be 
regarded  as  dangerous  to  ourselves, 
and,  on  that  ground,  call  for  decided 
and  immediate  interference  by  us.  The 
sentiments  and  the  policy  announced  by 
the  declaration,  thus  understood,  were, 
therefore,  in'  strict  conformity  to  our 
duties  and  our  interest. 

Sir,  I  look  on  the  message  of  De 
cember,  1823,  as  forming  a  bright  page 
in  our  history.  I  will  help  neither  to 
erase  it  nor  tear  it  out;  nor  shall  it  be, 
by  any  act  of  mine,  blurred  or  blotted. 
It  did  honor  to  the  sagacity  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  I  will  not  diminish  that 
honor.  It  elevated  the  hopes,  and 
gratified  the  patriotism,  of  the  people. 
Over  those  hopes  I  will  not  bring  a  mil 
dew  ;  nor  will  I  put  that  gratified  patri 
otism  to  shame. 


ADAMS    AND    JEFFERSON. 


A  DISCOURSE  IN  COMMEMORATION  OF  THE  LIVES  AND  SERVICES  OF  JOHN 
ADAMS  AND  THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  DELIVERED  IN  FANEUIL  HALL,  BOSTON, 
ON  THE  2o  OF  AUGUST,  1826. 


[SINCE  the  decease  of  General  Washing 
ton,  on  the  14th  of  December,  1799,  the 
public  mind  has  never  been  so  powerfully 
affected  in  this  part  of  the  country  by  any 
similar  event,  as  by  the  death  of  John 
Adams,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1826.  The 
news  reached  Boston  in  the  evening  of  that 
day.  The  decease  of  this  venerable  fellow- 
citizen  must  at  all  times  have  appealed 
with  much  force  to  the  patriotic  sympathies 
of  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  It  ac 
quired  a  singular  interest  from  the  year 
and  the  day  on  which  it  took  place  ;  —  the 
4th  of  July  of  the  year  completing  the  half- 
century  from  that  ever  memorable  era  in 
the  history  of  this  country  and  the  world, 
the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  a  meas 
ure  in  which  Mr  Adams  himself  had  taken 
so  distinguished  a  part.  The  emotions  of 
the  public  were  greatly  increased  by  the 
indications  given  by  Mr.  Adams  in  his  last 
hours,  that  he  was  fully  aware  that  the 
day  was  the  anniversary  of  Independence, 
and  by  his  dying  allusion  to  the  supposed 
fact  that  his  colleague,  Jefferson,  survived 
him.  When,  in  the  course  of  a  few  days, 
the  news  arrived  from  Virginia,  that  he 
also  had  departed  this  life,  on  the  same 
day  and  a  few  hours  before  Mr.  Adams, 
the  sensibility  of  the  community,  as  of 
the  country  at  large,  was  touched  beyond 
all  example.  The  occurrence  was  justly 
deemed  without  a  parallel  in  history.  The 
various  circumstances  of  association  and 
coincidence  which  marked  the  characters 
and  careers  of  these  great  men,  and  espe 
cially  those  of  their  simultaneous  decease 
on  the  4th  of  July,  were  dwelt  upon  with 
melancholy  but  untiring  interest.  The  cir 
cles  of  private  life,  the  press,  public  bodies, 
and  the  pulpit,  were  for  some  time  almost 
engrossed  with  the  topic  ;  and  solemn  rites 
of  commemoration  were  performed  through 
out  the  country. 

An  early  day  was  appointed  for  this 
purpose  by  the  City  Council  of  Boston. 
The  whole  community  manifested  its  sym 


pathy  in  the  extraordinary  event ;  and  on 
the  2d  of  August,  1826,  at  the  request  of  the 
municipal  authorities,  and  in  the  presence 
of  an  immense  audience,  the  following  Dis 
course  was  delivered  in  Faneuil  Hall.] 

THIS  is  an  unaccustomed  spectacle. 
For  the  first  time,  fellow-citizens,  badges 
of  mourning  shroud  the  columns  and 
overhang  the  arches  of  this  hall.  These 
walls,  which  were  consecrated,  so  long 
ago,  to  the  cause  of  American  liberty, 
which  witnessed  her  infant  struggles, 
and  rung  with  the  shouts  of  her  earliest 
victories,  proclaim,  now,  that  distin 
guished  friends  and  champions  of  that 
great  cause  have  fallen.  It  is  right  that 
it  should  be  thus.  The  tears  which 
flow,  and  the  honors  that  are  paid,  when 
the  founders  of  the  republic  die,  give 
hope  that  the  republic  itself  may  be 
immortal.  It  is  fit  that,  by  public  as 
sembly  and  solemn  observance,  by  an 
them  and  by  eulogy,  we  commemorate 
the  services  of  national  benefactors, 
extol  their  virtues,  and  render  thanks 
to  God  for  eminent  blessings,  early 
given  and  long  continued,  through  their 
agency,  to  our  favored  country. 

ADAMS  and  JEFFERSON  are  no 
more;  and  we  are  assembled,  fellow- 
citizens,  the  aged,  the  middle-aged,  and 
the  young,  by  the  spontaneous  impulse 
of  all,  under  the  authority  of  the  mu 
nicipal  government,  with  the  presence  of 
the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Common 
wealth,  and  others  its  official  represent 
atives,  the  University,  and  the  learned 
societies,  to  bear  our  part  in  those  mani- 


ADAMS   AND  JEFFERSON. 


157 


f  estations  of  respect  and  gratitude  which 
pervade  the  whole  land.  ADAMS  and 
JEFFERSON  are  no  more.  On  our  fifti 
eth  anniversary,  the  great  day  of  national 
jubilee,  in  the  very  hour  of  public  re 
joicing,  in  the  midst  of  echoing  and 
re-echoing  voices  of  thanksgiving,  while 
their  own  names  were  on  all  tongues, 
they  took  their  flight  together  to  the 
world  of  spirits. 

If  it  be  true  that  no  one  can  safely  be 
pronounced  happy  while  he  lives,  if  that 
event  which  terminates  life  can  alone 
crown  its  honors  and  its  glory,  what 
felicity  is  here !  The  great  epic  of  their 
lives,  how  happily  concluded!  Poetry 
itself  has  hardly  terminated  illustrious 
lives,  and  finished  the  career  of  earthly 
renown,  by  such  a  consummation.  If 
we  had  the  power,  we  could  not  wish  to 
reverse  this  dispensation  of  the  Divine 
Providence.  The  great  objects  of  life 
were  accomplished,  the  drama  was  ready 
to  be  closed.  It  has  closed;  our  patriots 
have  fallen;  but  so  fallen,  at  such  age, 
with  such  coincidence,  on  such  a  day, 
that  we  cannot  rationally  lament  that 
that  end  has  come,  which  we  knew  could 
not  be  long  deferred. 

Neither  of  these  great  men,  fellow- 
citizens,  could  have  died,  at  any  time, 
without  leaving  an  immense  void  in  our 
American  society.  They  have  been  so 
intimately,  and  for  so  long  a  time, 
blended  with  the  history  of  the  country, 
and  especially  so  united,  in  our  thoughts 
and  recollections,  with  the  events  of  the 
Revolution,  that  the  death  of  either 
would  have  touched  the  chords  of  public 
sympathy.  We  should  have  felt  that 
one  great  link,  connecting  us  with  former 
times,  was  broken;  that  we  had  lost 
something  more,  as  it  were,  of  the  pres 
ence  of  the  Revolution  itself,  and  of  the 
act  of  independence,  and  were  driven 
on,  by  another  great  remove  from  the 
days  of  our  country's  early  distinction, 
to  meet  posterity,  and  to  mix  with  the 
future.  Like  the  mariner,  whom  the 
currents  of  the  ocean  and  the  winds 
carry  along,  till  he  sees  the  stars  which 
have  directed  his  course  and  lighted  his 
pathless  way  descend,  one  by  one,  be 
neath  the  rising  horizon,  we  should  have 


felt  that  the  stream  of  time  had  borne 
us  onward  till  another  great  luminary, 
whose  light  had  cheered  us  and  whose 
guidance  we  had  followed,  had  sunk 
away  from  our  sight. 

But  the  concurrence  of  their  death  on 
the  anniversary  of  Independence  has 
naturally  awakened  stronger  emotions. 
Both  had  been  Presidents,  both  had 
lived  to  great  age,  both  were  early  pa 
triots,  and  both  were  distinguished  and 
ever  honored  by  their  immediate  agency 
in  the  act  of  independence.  It  cannot 
but  seem  striking  and  extraordinary, 
that  these  two  should  live  to  see  the  fif 
tieth  year  from  the  date  of  that  act; 
that  they  should  complete  that  year; 
and  that  then,  on  the  day  which  had 
fast  linked  for  ever  their  own  fame  with 
their  country's  glory,  the  heavens  should 
open  to  receive  them  both  at  once.  As 
their  lives  themselves  were  the  gifts  of 
Providence,  who  is  not  willing  to  recog 
nize  in  their  happy  termination,  as  well 
as  in  their  long  continuance,  proofs  that 
our  country  and  its  benefactors  are  ob 
jects  of  His  care? 

ADAMS  and  JEFFERSON,  I  have  said, 
are  no  more.  As  human  beings,  indeed, 
they  are  no  more.  They  are  no  more,  as 
in  1776,  bold  and  fearless  advocates  of 
independence;  no  more,  as  at  subsequent 
periods,  the  head  of  the  government;  no 
more,  as  we  have  recently  seen  them, 
aged  and  venerable  objects  of  admira 
tion  and  regard.  They  are  no  more. 
They  are  dead.  But  how  little  is  there 
of  the  great  and  good  which  can  die! 
To  their  country  they  yet  live,  and  live 
for  ever.  They  live  in  all  that  perpetu 
ates  the  remembrance  of  men  on  earth; 
in  the  recorded  proofs  of  their  own  great 
actions,  in  the  offspring  of  their  intel 
lect,  in  the  deep-engraved  lines  of  pub 
lic  gratitude,  and  in  the  respect  and 
homage  of  mankind.  They  live  in  their 
example;  and  they  live,  emphatically, 
and  will  live,  in  the  influence  which 
their  lives  and  efforts,  their  principles 
and  opinions,  now  exercise,  and  will 
continue  to  exercise,  on  the  affairs  of 
men,  not  only  in  their  own  country,  but 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  A  su 
perior  and  commanding  human  intellect, 


158 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


a  truly  great  man,  when  Heaven  vouch 
safes  so  rare  a  gift,  is  not  a  temporary 
flame,  burning  brightly  for  a  while,  and 
then  giving  place  to  returning  darkness. 
It  is  rather  a  spark  of  fervent  heat,  as 
well  as  radiant  light,  with  power  to 
enkindle  the  common  mass  of  human 
mind;  so  that  when  it  glimmers  in  its 
own  decay,  and  finally  goes  out  in  death, 
no  night  follows,  but  it  leaves  the  world 
all  light,  all  on  fire,  from  the  potent  con 
tact  of  its  own  spirit.  Bacon  died ;  but 
the  human  understanding,  roused  by  the 
touch  of  his  miraculous  wand  to  a  per 
ception  of  the  true  philosophy  and  the 
just  mode  of  inquiring  after  truth,  has 
kept  on  its  course  successfully  and  glori 
ously.  Newton  died;  yet  the  courses  of 
the  spheres  are  still  known,  and  they 
yet  move  on  by  the  laws  which  he  dis 
covered,  and  in  the  orbits  which  he  saw, 
and  described  for  them,  in  the  infinity 
of  space. 

No  two  men  now  live,  fellow-citizens, 
perhaps  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any 
two  men  have  ever  lived  in  one  age, 
who,  more  than  those  we  now  commem 
orate,  have  impressed  on  mankind  their 
own  sentiments  in  regard  to  politics  and 
government,  infused  their  own  opinions 
more  deeply  into  the  opinions  of  others, 
or  given  a  more  lasting  direction  to  the 
current  of  human  thought.  Their  work 
doth  not  perish  with  them.  The  tree 
which  they  assisted  to  plant  will  flourish, 
although  they  water  it  and  protect  it  no 
longer;  for  it  has  struck  its  roots  deep, 
it  has  sent  them  to  the  very  centre ;  no 
storm,  not  of  force  to  burst  the  orb,  can 
overturn  it;  its  branches  spread  wide; 
they  stretch  their  protecting  arms  broader 
and  broader,  and  its  top  is  destined  to 
reach  the  heavens.  We  are  not  deceived. 
There  is  no  delusion  here.  No  age  will 
come  in  which  the  American  Revolution 
will  appear  less  than  it  is,  one  of  the 
greatest  events  in  human  history.  No 
age  will  come  in  which  it  shall  cease  to 
be  seen  and  felt,  on  either  continent, 
that  a  mighty  step,  a  great  advance,  not 
only  in  American  affairs,  but  in  human 
affairs,  was  made  on  the  4th  of  July, 
1776.  And  no  age  will  come,  we  trust, 
so  ignorant  or  so  unjust  as  not  to  see  and 


acknowledge  the  efficient  agency  of  those 
we  now  honor  in  producing  that  momen 
tous  event. 

We  are  not  assembled,  therefore,  fel 
low-citizen^,  as  men  overwhelmed  with 
calamity  by  the  sudden  disruption  of 
the  ties  of  friendship  or  affection,  or  as 
in  despair  for  the  republic  by  the  un 
timely  blighting  of  its  hopes.  Death 
has  not  surprised  us  by  an  unseasonable 
blow.  We  have,  indeed,  seen  the  tomb 
close,  but  it  has  closed  only  over  mature 
years,  over  long-protracted  public  ser 
vice,  over  the  weakness  of  age,  and  over 
life  itself  only  when  the  ends  of  living 
had  been  fulfilled.  These  suns,  as  they 
rose  slowly  and  steadily,  amidst  clouds 
and  storms,  in  their  ascendant,  so  they 
have  not  rushed  from  their  meridian  to 
sink  suddenly  in  the  west.  Like  the 
mildness,  the  serenity,  the  continuing 
benignity  of  a  summer's  day,  they  have 
gone  down  with  slow-descending,  grate 
ful,  long-lingering  light;  and  now  that 
they  are  beyond  the  visible  margin  of 
the  world,  good  omens  cheer  us  from 
"the  bright  track  of  their  fiery  car  "  ! 

There  were  many  points  of  similarity 
in  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  these  great 
men.  They  belonged  to  the  same  pro 
fession,  and  had  pursued  its  studies  and 
its  practice,  for  unequal  lengths  of  time 
indeed,  but  with  diligence  and  effect. 
Both  were  learned  and  able  lawyers. 
They  were  natives  and  inhabitants,  re 
spectively,  of  those  two  of  the  Colonies 
which  at  the  Revolution  were  the  largest 
and  most  powerful,  and  which  naturally 
had  a  lead  in  the  political  affairs  of  the 
times.  When  the  Colonies  became  in 
some  degree  united,  by  the  assembling 
of  a  general  Congress,  they  were  brought 
to  act  together  in  its  deliberations,  not 
indeed  at  the  same  time,  but  both  at 
early  periods.  Each  had  already  mani 
fested  his  attachment  to  the  cause  of  the 
country,  as  well  as  his  ability  to  main 
tain  it,  by  printed  addresses,  public 
speeches,  extensive  correspondence,  and 
whatever  other  mode  could  be  adopted 
for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  en 
croachments  of  the  British  Parliament, 
and  animating  the  people  to  a  manly 
resistance.  Both  were  not  only  decided, 


ADAMS  AND 


159 


but  early,  friends  of  Independence. 
While  others  yet  doubted,  they  were 
resolved;  where  others  hesitated,  they 
pressed  forward.  They  were  both  mem 
bers  of  the  committee  for  preparing  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  they 
constituted  the  sub-committee  appointed 
by  the  other  members  to  make  the  draft. 
They  left  their  seats  in  Congress,  being 
called  to  other  public  employments,  at 
periods  not  remote  from  each  other,  al 
though  one  of  them  returned  to  it  after 
wards  for  a  short  time.  Neither  of  them 
was  of  the  assembly  of  great  men  which 
formed  the  present  Constitution,  and 
neither  was  at  any  time  a  member  of 
Congress  under  its  provisions.  Both 
have  been  public  ministers  abroad,  both 
Vice-Presidents  and  both  Presidents  of 
the  United  States.  These  coincidences 
are  now  singularly  crowned  and  com 
pleted.  They  have  died  together ;  and 
they  died  on  the  anniversary  of  liberty. 
When  many  of  us  were  last  in  this 
place,  fellow-citizens,  it  was  on  the  day 
of  that  anniversary.  We  were  met  to 
enjoy  the  festivities  belonging  to  the 
occasion,  and  to  manifest  our  grateful 
homage  to  our  political  fathers.  We 
did  not,  we  could  not  here,  forget  our 
venerable  neighbor  of  Quincy.  We 
knew  that  we  were  standing,  at  a  time 
of  high  and  palmy  prosperity,  where  he 
had  stood  in  the  hour  of  utmost  peri] ; 
that  we  saw  nothing  but  liberty  and 
security,  where  he  had  met  the  frown 
of  power;  that  we  were  enjoying  every 
thing,  where  he  had  hazarded  every 
thing;  and  just  and  sincere  plaudits  rose 
to  his  name,  from  the  crowds  which  filled 
this  area,  and  hung  over  these  galleries. 
He  whose  grateful  duty  it  was  to  speak 
to  us,1  on  that  day,  of  the  virtues  of  our 
fathers,  had,  indeed,  admonished  us  that 
time  and  years  were  about  to  level  his 
venerable  frame  with  the  dust.  But  he 
bade  us  hope  that  "  the  sound  of  a  na 
tion's  joy,  rushing  from  our  cities,  ring 
ing  from  our  valleys,  echoing  from  our 
hills,  might  yet  break  the  silence  of  his 
aged  ear;  that  the  rising  blessings  of 
grateful  millions  might  yet  visit  with  glad 
light  his  decaying  vision."  Alas!  that 
1  Hon.  Josiah  Quincy. 


vision  was  then  closing  for  ever.  Alas ! 
the  silence  which  was  then  settling  on 
that  aged  ear  was  an  everlasting  silence ! 
For,  lo !  in  the  very  moment  of  our  fes 
tivities,  his  freed  spirit  ascended  to  God 
who  gave  it!  Human  aid  and  human 
solace  terminate  at  the  grave;  or  we 
would  gladly  have  borne  him  upward, 
on  a  nation's  outspread  hands;  we  would 
have  accompanied  him,  and  with  the 
blessings  of  millions  and  the  prayers  of 
millions,  commended  him  to  the  Divine 
favor. 

While  still  indulging  our  thoughts, 
on  the  coincidence  of  the  death  of  this 
venerable  man  with  the  anniversary  of 
Independence,  we  learn  that  Jefferson, 
too,  has  fallen ;  and  that  these  aged 
patriots,  these  illustrious  fellow-laborers, 
have  left  our  world  together.  May  not 
such  events  raise  the  suggestion  that  they 
are  not  undesigned,  and  that  Heaven  does 
so  order  things,  as  sometimes  to  attract 
strongly  the  attention  and  excite  the 
thoughts  of  men?  The  occurrence  has 
added  new  interest  to  our  anniversary, 
and  will  be  remembered  in  all  time  to 
come. 

The  occasion,  fellow-citizens,  requires 
some  account  of  the  lives  and  services  of 
JOHN  ADAMS  and  THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 
This  duty  must  necessarily  be  performed 
with  great  brevity,  and  in  the  discharge 
of  it  I  shall  be  obliged  to  confine  myself, 
principally,  to  those  parts  of  their  his 
tory  and  character  which  belonged  to 
them  as  public  men. 

JOHN  ADAMS  was  born  at  Quincy, 
then  part  of  the  ancient  town  of  Brain- 
tree,  on  the  19th  day  of  October  (old 
style),  1735.  He  was  a  descendant  of 
the  Puritans,  his  ancestors  having  early 
emigrated  from  England,  and  settled  in 
Massachusetts.  Discovering  in  child 
hood  a  strong  love  of  reading  and  of 
knowledge,  together  with  marks  of  great 
strength  and  activity  of  mind,  proper 
care  was  taken  by  his  worthy  father  to 
provide  for  his  education.  He  pursued 
his  youthful  studies  in  Brain  tree,  under 
Mr.  Marsh,  a  teacher  whose  fortune  it 
was  that  Josiah  Quincy,  Jr.,  as  well  as 
the  subject  of  these  remarks,  should 


160 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


receive  from  him  his  instruction  in  the 
rudiments  of  classical  literature.  Hav 
ing  been  admitted,  in  1751,  a  member 
of  Harvard  College,  Mr.  Adams  was 
graduated,  in  course,  in  1755;  and  on  the 
catalogue  of  that  institution,  his  name, 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  was  second 
among  the  living  Alumni,  being  preced 
ed  only  by  that  of  the  venerable  Holy- 
oke.  With  what  degree  of  reputation 
he  left  the  University  is  not  now  precisely 
known.  We  know  only  that  he  was  dis 
tinguished  in  a  class  which  numbered 
Locke  and  Hemmenway  among  its  mem 
bers.  Choosing  the  law  for  his  profes 
sion,  he  commenced  and  prosecuted  its 
studies  at  Worcester,  under  the  direction 
of  Samuel  Putnam,  a  gentleman  whom 
he  has  himself  described  as  an  acute 
man,  an  able  and  learned  lawyer,  and 
as  being  in  large  professional  practice 
at  that  time.  In  1758  he  was  admitted 
to  the  bar,  and  entered  upon  the  practice 
of  the  law  in  Braintree.  He  is  under 
stood  to  have  made  his  first  considerable 
effort,  or  to  have  attained  his  first  signal 
success,  at  Plymouth,  on  one  of  those 
occasions  which  furnish  the  earliest  op 
portunity  for  distinction  to  many  young 
men  of  the  profession,  a  jury  trial,  and 
a  criminal  cause.  His  business  natu 
rally  grew  with  his  reputation,  and  his 
residence  in  the  vicinity  afforded  the 
opportunity,  as  his  growing  eminence 
gave  the  power,  of  entering  on  a  larger 
field  of  practice  in  the  capital.  In  1766 
he  removed  his  residence  to  Boston,  still 
continuing  his  attendance  on  the  neigh 
boring  circuits,  and  not  unfrequently 
called  to  remote  parts  of  the  Province. 
In  1770  his  professional  firmness  was 
brought  to  a  test  of  some  severity,  on 
the  application  of  the  British  officers 
and  soldiers  to  undertake  their  defence, 
on  the  trial  of  the  indictments  found 
against  them  on  account  of  the  trans 
actions  of  the  memorable  5th  of  March. 
He  seems  to  have  thought,  on  this  occa 
sion,  that  a  man  can  no  more  abandon 
the  proper  duties  of  his  profession,  than 
he  can  abandon  other  duties.  The  event 
proved,  that,  as  he  judged  well  for  his 
own  reputation,  so,  too,  he  judged  well 
for  the  interest  and  permanent  fame  of 


his  country.  The  result  of  that  trial 
proved,  that,  notwithstanding  the  high 
degree  of  excitement  then  existing  in 
consequence  of  the  measures  of  the  Brit 
ish  goveniinent,  a  jury  of  Massachusetts 
would  not  deprive  the  most  reckless 
enemies,  even  the  officers  of  that  stand 
ing  army  quartered  among  them,  which 
they  so  perfectly  abhorred,  of  any  part 
of  that  protection  which  the  law,  in  its 
mildest  arid  most  indulgent  interpreta 
tion,  aifords  to  persons  accused  of  crimes. 
Without  following  Mr.  Adams's  pro 
fessional  course  further,  suffice  it  to  say, 
that  on  the  first  establishment  of  the 
judicial  tribunals  under  the  authority  of 
the  State,  in  1776,  he  received  an  offer 
of  the  high  and  responsible  station  of 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Massachusetts.  But  he  was  destined 
for  another  and  a  different  career. 
From  early  life  the  bent  of  his  mind 
was  toward  politics ;  a  propensity  which 
the  state  of  the  times,  if  it  did  not 
create,  doubtless  very  much  strength 
ened.  Public  subjects  must  have  occu 
pied  the  thoughts  and  filled  up  the  con 
versation  in  the  circles  in  which  he  then 
moved ;  and  the  interesting  questions  at 
that  time  just  arising  could  not  but 
seize  on  a  mind  like  his,  ardent,  san 
guine,  and  patriotic.  A  letter,  fortu 
nately  preserved,  written  by  him  at 
Worcester,  so  early  as  the  12th  of  Oc 
tober,  1755,  is  a  proof  of  very  compre 
hensive  views,  and  uncommon  depth  of 
reflection,  in  a  young  man  not  yet  quite 
twenty.  In  this  letter  he  predicted  the 
transfer  of  power,  and  the  establishment 
of  a  new  seat  of  empire  in  America;  he 
predicted,  also,  the  increase  of  popula 
tion  in  the  Colonies;  and  anticipated 
their  naval  distinction,  and  foretold  that 
all  Europe  combined  could  not  subdue 
them.  All  this  is  said,  not  on  a  public 
occasion  or  for  effect,  but  in  the  style  of 
sober  and  friendly  correspondence,  as 
the  result  of  his  own  thoughts.  "  I 
sometimes  retire,"  said  he,  at  the  close 
of  the  letter,  "and,  laying  things  to 
gether,  form  some  reflections  pleasing 
to  myself.  The  produce  of  one  of  these 
reveries  you  have  read  above."  This 
prognostication  so  early  in  his  own  life, 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


161 


so  early  in  the  history  of  the  country, 
of  independence,  of  vast  increase  of 
numbers,  of  naval  force,  of  such  aug 
mented  power  as  might  defy  all  Europe, 
is  remarkable.  It  is  more  remarkable 
that  its  author  should  live  to  see  ful 
filled  to  the  letter  what  could  have 
seemed  to  others,  at  the  time,  but  the 
extravagance  of  youthful  fancy.  His 
earliest  political  feelings  were  thus 
strongly  American,  and  from  this  ar 
dent  attachment  to  his  native  soil  he 
never  departed. 

While  still  living  at  Quincy,  and  at 
the  age  of  twenty-four,  Mr.  Adams  was 
present,  in  this  town,  at  the  argument 
before  the  Supreme  Court  respecting 
Writs  of  Assistance,  and  heard  the  cele 
brated  and  patriotic  speech  of  JAMES 
OTIS.  Unquestionably,  that  was  a  mas 
terly  performance.  No  flighty  declama 
tion  about  liberty,  no  superficial  discus 
sion  of  popular  topics,  it  was  a  learned, 
penetrating,  convincing,  constitutional 
argument,  expressed  in  a  strain  of  high 
and  resolute  patriotism.  He  grasped 
the  question  then  pending  between  Eng 
land  and  her  Colonies  with  the  strength 
of  a  lion;  and  if  he  sometimes  sported, 
it  was  only  because  the  lion  himself  is 
sometimes  playful.  Its  success  appears 
to  have  been  as  great  as  its  merits,  and  its 
impression  was  widely  felt.  Mr.  Adams 
himself  seems  never  to  have  lost  the 
feeling  it  produced,  and  to  have  enter 
tained  constantly  the  fullest  conviction 
of  its  important  effects.  "I  do  say," 
he  observes,  "in  the  most  solemn  man 
ner,  that  Mr.  Otis's  Oration  against 
Writs  of  Assistance  breathed  into  this 
nation  the  breath  of  life."  1 

In  1765  Mr.  Adams  laid  before  the 

1  Nearly  all  that  was  known  of  this  cele 
brated  argument,  at  the  time  the  present  Dis 
course  was  delivered,  was  derived  from  the 
recollections  of  John  Adams,  as  preserved  in 
Minot's  History  of  Massachusetts,  Vol.  II.  p. 
91.  See  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  Vol. 
II. 'p.  124,  published  in  the  course  of  the  past 
year  (1850),  in  the  Appendix  to  which,  p.  521, 
will  be  found  a  paper  hitherto  unpublished,  con 
taining  notes  of  the  argument  of  Otis,  "which 
seem  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  sketch  pub 
lished  by  Minot."  Tudor's  Life  of  James  Otis, 
p.  61. 


11 


public,  anonymously,  a  series  of  essays, 
afterwards  collected  in  a  volume  in  Lon 
don,  under  the  title  of  "  A  Dissertation 
on  the  Canon  and  Feudal  Law."  a  The 
object  of  this  work  was  to  show  that 
our  New  England  ancestors,  in  consent 
ing  to  exile  themselves  from  their  native 
land,  were  actuated  mainly  by  the  desire 
of  delivering  themselves  from  the  power 
of  the  hierarchy,  and  from  the  monarch 
ical  and  aristocratical  systems  of  the 
other  continent;  and  to  make  this  truth 
bear  with  effect  on  the  politics  of  the 
times.  Its  tone  is  uncommonly  bold 
and  animated  for  that  period.  He  calls 
on  the  people,  not  only  to  defend,  but  to 
study  and  understand,  their  rights  and 
privileges ;  urges  earnestly  the  necessity 
of  diffusing  general  knowledge;  invokes 
the  clergy  and  the  bar,  the  colleges  and 
academies,  and  all  others  who  have  the 
ability  and  the  means  to  expose  the  in 
sidious  designs  of  arbitrary  power,  to 
resist  its  approaches,  and  to  be  per 
suaded  that  there  is  a  settled  design 
oil  foot  to  enslave  all  America.  "Be 
it  remembered,"  says  the  author,  "  that 
liberty  must,  at  all  hazards,  be  support 
ed.  We  have  a  right  to  it,  derived  from 
our  Maker.  But  if  we  had  not,  our  fa 
thers  have  earned  and  bought  it  for  us,  at 
the  expense  of  their  ease,  their  estates, 
their  pleasure,  and  their  blood.  And 
liberty  cannot  be  preserved  without  a 
general  knowledge  among  the  people, 
who  have  a  right,  from  the  frame  of 
their  nature,  to  knowledge,  as  their 
great  Creator,  who  does  nothing  in  vain, 
has  given  them  understandings  and  a 
desire  to  know.  But,  besides  this,  they 
have  a  right,  an  indisputable  unaliena- 
ble,  indefeasible,  divine  right,  to  that 
most  dreaded  and  envied  kind  of  knowl 
edge,  I  mean  of  the  characters  and  con 
duct  of  their  rulers.  Rulers  are  no  more 
than  attorneys,  agents,  and  trustees  for 
the  people;  and  if  the  cause,  the  inter 
est  and  trust,  is  insidiously  betrayed,  or 
wantonly  trifled  away,  the  people  have 
a  right  to  revoke  the  authority  that  they 
themselves  have  deputed,  and  to  consti- 

2  See  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  Vol. 
II.  p.  150,  Vol  III.  p.  447,  and  North  American 
Review,  Vol.  LXXI.  p.  430. 


162 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


tute  abler  and  better  agents,  attorneys, 
and  trustees." 

The  citizens  of  this  town  conferred 
on  Mr.  Adams  his  first  political  distinc 
tion,  and  clothed  him  with  his  first  po 
litical  trust,  by  electing  him  one  of  their 
representatives,  in  1770.  Before  this 
time  he  had  become  extensively  known 
throughout  the  Province,  as  well  by 
the  part  he  had  acted  in  relation  to 
public  affairs,  as  by  the  exercise  of  his 
professional  ability.  He  was  among 
those  who  took  the  deepest  interest  in 
the  controversy  with  England,  and, 
whether  in  or  out  of  the  legislature, 
his  time  and  talents  were  alike  devoted 
to  the  cause.  In  the  years  1773  and 
1774  he  was  chosen  a  Councillor  by  the 
members  of  the  General  Court,  but  re 
jected  by  Governor  Hutchinson  in  the 
former  of  those  years,  and  by  Governor 
Gage  in  the  latter. 

The  time  was  now  at  hand,  however, 
•when  the  affairs  of  the  Colonies  urgent 
ly  demanded  united  counsels  throughout 
the  country.  An  open  rupture  with  the 
parent  state  appeared  inevitable,  and  it 
was  but  the  dictate  of  prudence  that 
those  who  were  united  by  a  common  in 
terest  and  a  common  danger  should  pro 
tect  that  interest  and  guard  against  that 
danger  by  united  efforts.  A  general 
Congress  of  Delegates  from  all  the  Colo 
nies  having  been  proposed  and  agreed 
to,  the  House  of  Representatives,  on 
the  17th  of  June,  1774,  elected  James 
Bowdoin,  Thomas  Gushing,  Samuel 
Adams,  John  Adams,  and  Robert  Treat 
Paine,  delegates  from  Massachusetts. 
This  appointment  was  made  at  Salem, 
where  the  General  Court  had  been  con 
vened  by  Governor  Gage,  in  the  last 
hour  of  the  existence  of  a  House  of 
Representatives  under  the  Provincial 
Charter.  While  engaged  in  this  im 
portant  business,  the  Governor,  having 
been  informed  of  what  was  passing,  sent 
his  secretary  with  a  message  dissolving 
the  General  Court.  The  secretary,  find 
ing  the  door  locked,  directed  the  mes 
senger  to  go  in  and  inform  the  Speaker 
that  the  secretary  was  at  the  door  with 
a  message  from  the  Governor.  The  mes 
senger  returned,  and  informed  the  sec 


retary  that  the  orders  of  the  House  were 
that  the  doors  should  be  kept  fast; 
whereupon  the  secretary  soon  after  read 
upon  the  stairs  a  proclamation  dissolv 
ing  the  .General  Court.  Thus  termi 
nated,  for  ever,  the  actual  exercise  of  the 
political  power  of  England  in  or  over 
Massachusetts.  The  four  last-named 
delegates  accepted  their  appointments, 
and  took  their  seats  in  Congress  the 
first  day  of  its  meeting,  the  5th  of  Sep 
tember,  1774,  in  Philadelphia. 

The  proceedings  of  the  first  Congress 
are  well  known,  and  have  been  univer 
sally  admired.  It  is  in  vain  that  we 
would  look  for  superior  proofs  of  wis 
dom,  talent,  and  patriotism.  Lord  Chat 
ham  said,  that,  for  himself,  he  must 
declare  that  he  had  studied  and  admired 
the  free  states  of  antiquity,  the  master 
states  of  the  world,  but  that  for  solidity 
of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wis 
dom  of  conclusion,  no  body  of  men  could 
stand  in  preference  to  this  Congress.  It 
is  hardly  inferior  praise  to  say,  that  no 
production  of  that  great  man  himself 
can  be  pronounced  superior  to  several  of 
the  papers  published  as  the  proceedings 
of  this  most  able,  most  firm,  most  patri 
otic  assembly.  There  is,  indeed,  noth 
ing  superior  to  them  in  the  range  of 
political  disquisition.  They  not  only 
embrace,  illustrate,  and  enforce  every 
thing  which  political  philosophy,  the 
love  of  liberty,  and  the  spirit  of  free 
inquiry  had  antecedently  produced,  but 
they  add  new  and  striking  views  of 
their  own,  and  apply  the  whole,  with 
irresistible  force,  in  support  of  the  cause 
which  had  drawn  them  together. 

Mr.  Adams  wTas  a  constant  attendant 
on  the  deliberations  of  this  body,  and 
bore  an  active  part  in  its  important 
measures.  He  was  of  the  committee  to 
state  the  rights  of  the  Colonies,  and  of 
that  also  which  reported  the  Address  to 
the  King. 

As  it  was  in  the  Continental  Congress, 
fellow-citizens,  that  those  whose  deaths 
have  given  rise  to  this  occasion  were  first 
brought  together,  and  called  upon  to 
unite  their  industry  and  their  ability  in 
the  service  of  the  country,  let  us  now 
turn  to  the  other  of  these  distinguished 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


1G3 


men,  and  take  a  brief  notice  of  his  life 
up  to  the  period  when  he  appeared  within 
the  walls  of  Congress. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  descended  from 
ancestors  who  had  been  settled  in  Vir 
ginia  for  some  generations,  was  born 
near  the  spot  on  which  he  died,  in  the 
county  of  Albemarle,  on  the  2d  of  April 
(old  style),  1743.  His  youthful  studies 
were  pursued  in  the  neighborhood  of  his 
father's  residence  until  he  was  removed 
to  the  College  of  William  and  Mary,  the 
highest  honors  of  which  he  in  due  time 
received.  Having  left  the  College  with 
reputation,  he  applied  himself  to  the 
study  of  the  law  under  the  tuition  of 
George  Wythe,  one  of  the  highest  judi 
cial  names  of  which  that  State  can  boast. 
At  an  early  age  he  was  elected  a  member 
of  the  legislature,  in  which  he  had  no 
sooner  appeared  than  he  distinguished 
himself  by  knowledge,  capacity,  and 
promptitude. 

Mr.  Jefferson  appears  to  have  been 
imbued  with  an  early  love  of  letters  and 
science,  and  to  have  cherished  a  strong 
disposition  to  pursue  these  objects.  To 
the  physical  sciences,  especially,  and  to 
ancient  classic  literature,  he  is  under 
stood  to  have  had  a  warm  attachment, 
and  never  entirely  to  have  lost  sight  of 
them  in  the  midst  of  the  busiest  occu 
pations.  But  the  times  were  times  for 
action,  rather  than  for  contemplation. 
The  country  wras  to  be  defended,  and  to 
be  saved,  before  it  could  be  enjoyed. 
Philosophic  leisure  and  literary  pursuits, 
and  even  the  objects  of  professional  at 
tention,  were  all  necessarily  postponed 
to  the  urgent  calls  of  the  public  service. 
The  exigency  of  the  country  made  the 
same  demand  on  Mr.  Jefferson  that  it 
made  on  others  who  had  the  ability  and 
the  disposition  to  serve  it;  and  he  obeyed 
the  call;  thinking  and  feeling  in  this 
respect  with  the  great  Roman  orator: 
"  Quis  enim  est  tain  cupidus  in  perspi- 
cienda  cognoscendaque  rerum  natura, 
ut,  si  ei  tractanti  contemplantique  res 
cognitione  dignissimas  subito  sit  alla- 
tum  periculum  discrimenque  patriae,  cui 
subvenire  opitularique  possit,  non  ilia 
omnia  relinquat  atque  abjiciat,  etiam  si 


dinumerare  se  stellas,  aut  metiri  mundi 
magnitudinem  posse  arbitretur?  "  1 

Entering  with  all  his  heart  into  the 
cause  of  liberty,  his  ability,  patriotism, 
and  power  with  the  pen  naturally  drew 
upon  him  a  large  participation  in  the 
most  important  concerns.  Wherever  he 
was,  there  was  found  a  soul  devoted  to 
the  cause,  power  to  defend  and  maintain 
it,  and  willingness  to  incur  all  its  haz 
ards.  In  1774  he  published  a  "  Summary 
View  of  the  Rights  of  British  America," 
a  valuable  production  among  those  in 
tended  to  show  the  dangers  which  threat 
ened  the  liberties  of  the  country,  and  to 
encourage  the  people  in  their  defence. 
In  June,  1775,  he  was  elected  a  member 
of  the  Continental  Congress,  as  succes 
sor  to  Peyton  Randolph,  who  had  re 
signed  his  place  on  account  of  ill  health, 
and  took  his  seat  in  that  body  on  the 
21st  of  the  same  month. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  without  pur 
suing  the  biography  of  these  illustrious 
men  further,  for  the  present,  let  us  turn 
our  attention  to  the  most  prominent  act 
of  their  lives,  their  participation  in  the 
DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE. 

Preparatory  to  the  introduction  of  that 
important  measure,  a  committee,  at  the 
head  of  which  was  Mr.  Adams,  had 
reported  a  resolution,  which  Congress 
adopted  on  the  10th  of  May,  recom 
mending,  in  substance,  to  all  the  Colo 
nies  which  had  not  already  established 
governments  suited  to  the  exigencies  of 
their  affairs,  to  adopt  such  government  as 
would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  best  conduce  to  the  happi 
ness  and  safety  of  their  constituents  in  par 
ticular,  and  America  in  general. 

This  significant  vote  was  soon  fol 
lowed  by  the  direct  proposition  which 
Richard  Henry  Lee  had  the  honor  to 
submit  to  Congress,  by  resolution,  on 
the  7th  day  of  June.  The  published 
journal  does  not  expressly  state  it,  but 
there  is  no  doubt,  I  suppose,  that  this 
resolution  was  in  the  same  words,  when 
originally  submitted  by  Mr.  Lee,  as 
when  finally  passed.  Having  been  dis 
cussed  on  Saturday,  the  8th,  and  Mon 
day,  the  10th  of  June,  this  resolution 
i  Cicero  de  Officiis,  Lib.  I.  §  43. 


164 


ADAMS   AND   JEFFERSON. 


was  on  the  last-mentioned  day  postponed 
for  further  consideration  to  the  first  day 
of  July;  and  at  the  same  time  it  was 
voted,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to 
prepare  a  Declaration  to  the  effect  of  the 
resolution.  This  committee  was  elected 
by  ballot,  on  the  following  day,  and  con 
sisted  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  John  Adams, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  Roger  Sherman,  and 
Robert  R.  Livingston. 

It  is  usual,  when  committees  are 
elected  by  ballot,  that  their  members 
should  be  arranged  in  order,  according 
to  the  number  of  votes  which  each  has 
received.  Mr.  Jefferson,  therefore,  had 
received  the  highest,  and  Mr.  Adams 
the  next  highest  number  of  votes.  The 
difference  is  said  to  have  been  but  of 
a  single  vote.  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr. 
Adams,  standing  thus  at  the  head  of  the 
committee,  were  requested  by  the  other 
members  to  act  as  a  subcommittee  to 
prepare  the  draft;  and  Mr.  Jefferson 
drew  up  the  paper.  The  original  draft, 
as  brought  by  him  from  his  study,  and 
submitted  to  the  other  members  of  the 
committee,  with  interlineations  in  the 
handwriting  of  Dr.  Franklin,  and  others 
in  that  of  Mr.  Adams,  was  in  Mr.  Jeffer 
son's  possession  at  the  time  of  his  death.1 
The  merit  of  this  paper  is  Mr.  Jeffer 
son's.  Some  changes  were  made  in  it  at 
the  suggestion  of  other  members  of  the 
committee,  and  others  by  Congress  while 
it  was  under  discussion.  But  none  of 
them  altered  the  tone,  the  frame,  the  ar 
rangement,  or  the  general  character  of 
the  instrument.  As  a  composition,  the 
Declaration  is  Mr.  Jefferson's.  It  is  the 
production  of  his  mind,  and  the  high 
honor  of  it  belongs  to  him,  clearly  and 
absolutely. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said,  as  if  it 
were  a  derogation  from  the  merits  of  this 
paper,  that  it  contains  nothing  new; 
that  it  only  states  grounds  of  proceed 
ing,  and  presses  topics  of  argument, 

1  A  fac-simile  of  this  ever-memorable  state 
paper,  as  drafted  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  in 
terlineations  alluded  to  in  the  text,  is  contained 
in  Mr.  Jefferson's  Writings,  Vol.  I.  p.  146.  See, 
also,  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the  Declara 
tion,  the  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams, 
Vol.  II.  p.  512  et  se%. 


which  had  often  been  stated  and  pressed 
before.  But  it  was  not  the  object  of  the 
Declaration  to  produce  any  thing  new. 
It  was  not  to  invent  reasons  for  inde 
pendence,  but  to  state  those  which  gov 
erned  the  Congress.  For  great  and 
sufficient  causes,  it  was  proposed  to 
declare  independence;  and  the  proper 
business  of  the  paper  to  be  drawn  was 
to  set  forth  those  causes,  and  justify  the 
authors  of  the  measure,  in  any  event  of 
fortune,  to  the  country  and  to  posterity. 
The  cause  of  American  independence, 
moreover,  was  now  to  be  presented  to 
the  world  in  such  manner,  if  it  might  so 
be,  as  to  engage  its  sympathy,  to  com 
mand  its  respect,  to  attract  its  admira 
tion  ;  and  in  an  assembly  of  most  able 
and  distinguished  men,  THOMAS  JEF 
FERSON  had  the  high  honor  of  being  the 
selected  advocate  of  this  cause.  To  say 
that  he  performed  his  great  work  well, 
would  be  doing  him  injustice.  To  say 
that  he  did  excellently  well,  admirably 
well,  would  be  inadequate  and  halting 
praise.  Let  us  rather  say,  that  he  so 
discharged  the  duty  assigned  him,  that 
all  Americans  may  well  rejoice  that  the 
work  of  drawing  the  title-deed  of  their 
liberties  devolved  upon  him. 

With  all  its  merits,  there  are  those 
who  have  thought  that  there  was  one 
thing  in  the  Declaration  to  be  regretted ; 
and  that  is,  the  asperity  and  apparent 
anger  with  which  it  speaks  of  the  person 
of  the  king;  the  industrious  ability  witli 
which  it  accumulates  and  charges  upon 
him  all  the  injuries  which  the  Colonies 
had  suffered  from  the  mother  country. 
Possibly  some  degree  of  injustice,  now 
or  hereafter,  at  home  or  abroad,  may  be 
done  to  the  character  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
if  this  part  of  the  Declaration  be  not 
placed  in  its  proper  light.  Anger  or  re 
sentment,  certainly  much  less  personal 
reproach  and  invective,  could  not  prop 
erly  find  place  in  a  composition  of  such 
high  dignity,  and  of  such  lofty  and  per 
manent  character. 

A  single  reflection  on  the  original 
ground  of  dispute  between  England  and 
the  Colonies  is  sufficient  to  remove  any 
unfavorable  impression  in  this  respect. 

The  inhabitants  of  all  the  Colonies, 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


165 


while  Colonies,  admitted  themselves 
bound  by  their  allegiance  to  the  king; 
but  they  disclaimed  altogether  the  au 
thority  of  Parliament;  holding  them 
selves,  in  this  respect,  to  resemble  the 
condition  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  before 
the  respective  unions  of  those  kingdoms 
with  England,  when  they  acknowledged 
allegiance  to  the  same  king,  but  had 
each  its  separate  legislature.  The  tie, 
therefore,  which  our  Revolution  was  to 
break  did  not  subsist  between  us  and 
the  British  Parliament,  or  between  us 
and  the  British  government  in  the  ag 
gregate,  but  directly  between  us  and  the 
king  himself.  The  Colonies  had  never 
admitted  themselves  subject  to  Parlia 
ment.  That  was  precisely  the  point  of 
the  original  controversy.  They  had  uni 
formly  denied  that  Parliament  had  au 
thority  to  make  laws  for  them.  There 
was,  therefore,  no  subjection  to  Parlia 
ment  to  be  thrown  off.1  But  allegiance 
to  the  king  did  exist,  and  had  been 
uniformly  acknowledged;  and  down  to 
1775  the  most  solemn  assurances  had 
been  given  that  it  was  not  intended  to 
break  that  allegiance,  or  to  throw  it  off. 
Therefore,  as  the  direct  object  and  only 
effect  of  the  Declaration,  according  to 
the  principles  on  which  the  controversy 
had  been  maintained  on  our  part,  were 
to  sever  the  tie  of  allegiance  which 
bound  us  to  the  king,  it  was  properly 
and  necessarily  founded  on  acts  of  the 

1  This  question,  of  the  power  of  Parliament 
over  the  Colonies,  was  discussed,  with  singular 
ability,  by  Governor  Hutchinson  on  the  one  side, 
and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Massachu 
setts  on  the  other,  in  1773.  The  argument  of  the 
House  is  in  the  form  of  an  answer  to  the  Gov 
ernor's  Message,  and  was  reported  by  Mr.  Sam 
uel  Adams,  Mr.  Hancock,  Mr.  Hawley,  Mr. 
Bowers,  Mr.  Hobson,  Mr.  Foster,  Mr.  Phillips, 
and  Mr.  Thayer.  As  the  power  of  the  Parlia 
ment  had  been  acknowledged,  so  far  at  least  as 
to  affect  us  by  laws  of  trade,  it  was  not  easv  to 
settle  the  line  of  distinction.  It  was  thought, 
however,  to  be  very  clear,  that  the  charters  of 
the  Colonies  had  exempted  them  from  the  gen 
eral  legislation  of  the  British  Parliament.  See 
Massachusetts  State  Papers,  p.  351.  The  impor 
tant  assistance  rendered  by  John  Adams  in  the 
preparation  of  the  answer  of  the  House  to  the 
Message  of  the  Governor  may  be  learned  from 
the  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  Vol.  II. 
p.  311  et  sey. 


crown  itself,  as  its  justifying  causes. 
Parliament  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned 
in  the  whole  instrument.  When  odious 
and  oppressive  acts  are  referred  to,  it  is 
done  by  charging  the  king  with  confed 
erating  with  others  "in  pretended  acts 
of  legislation";  the  object  being  con 
stantly  to  hold  the  king  himself  directly 
responsible  for  those  measures  which 
were  the  grounds  of  separation.  Even 
the  precedent  of  the  English  Revolution 
was  not  overlooked,  and  in  this  case,  as 
well  as  in  that,  occasion  was  found  to 
say  that  the  king  had  abdicated  the  gov 
ernment.  Consistency  with  the  princi 
ples  upon  which  resistance  began,  and 
with  all  the  previous  state  papers  issued 
by  Congress,  required  that  the  Declara 
tion  should  be  bottomed  on  the  misgov- 
ernment  of  the  king;  and  therefore  it 
was  properly  framed  with  that  aim  and 
to  that  end.  The  king  was  known,  in 
deed,  to  have  acted,  as  in  other  cases,  by 
his  ministers,  and  with  his  Parliament ; 
but  as  our  ancestors  had  never  admitted 
themselves  subject  either  to  ministers  or 
to  Parliament,  there  were  no  reasons  to 
be  given  for  now  refusing  obedience  to 
their  authority.  This  clear  and  obvious 
necessity  of  founding  the  Declaration  on 
the  misconduct  of  the  king  himself,  gives 
to  that  instrument  its  personal  applica 
tion,  and  its  character  of  direct  and 
pointed  accusation. 

The  Declaration  having  been  reported 
to  Congress  by  the  committee,  the  reso 
lution  itself  was  taken  up  and  debated 
on  the  first  day  of  July,  and  again  on  the 
second,  on  which  last  day  it  was  agreed 
to  and  adopted,  in  these  words:  — 

"  Resolved,  That  these  united  Colonies 
are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent  States;  that  they  are  ab 
solved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British 
crown,  and  that  all  political  connection 
between  them  and  the  state  of  Great 
Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dis 
solved." 

Having  thus  passed  the  main  resolu 
tion,  Congress  proceeded  to  consider  the 
reported  draught  of  the  Declaration.  It 
was  discussed  on  the  second,  and  third, 
and  FOURTH  days  of  the  month,  in  com 
mittee  of  the  whole;  and  on  the  last  of 


166 


ADAMS  AND   JEFFERSON. 


those  days,  being  reported  from  that 
committee,  it  received  the  final  approba 
tion  and  sanction  of  Congress.  It  was 
ordered,  at  the  same  time,  that  copies  be 
sent  to  the  several  States,  and  that  it  be 
proclaimed  at  the  head  of  the  army.  The 
Declaration  thus  published  did  not  bear 
the  names  of  the  members,  for  as  yet  it 
had  not  been  signed  by  them.  It  was 
authenticated,  like  other  papers  of  the 
Congress,  by  the  signatures  of  the  Pres 
ident  and  Secretary.  On  the  19th  of 
July,  as  appears  by  the  secret  journal, 
Congress  "Resolved,  That  the  Declara 
tion,  passed  on  the  fourth,  be  fairly  en 
grossed  on  parchment,  with  the  title  and 
style  of  '  THE  UNANIMOUS  DECLARA 
TION  OF  THE  THIRTEEN  UNITED  STATES 
OF  AMERICA  ' ;  and  that  the  same,  when 
engrossed,  be  signed  by  every  member  of 
Congress."  And  on  the  SECOND  DAY 
OF  AUGUST  following,  "  the  Declara 
tion,  being  engrossed  and  compared  at 
the  table,  was  signed  by  the  members." 
So  that  it  happens,  fellow-citizens,  that 
we  pay  these  honors  to  their  memory  on 
the  anniversary  of  that  day  (2d  of  Au 
gust)  on  which  these  great  men  actually 
signed  their  names  to  the  Declaration. 
The  Declaration  was  thus  made,  that  is, 
it  passed  and  was  adopted  as  an  act  of 
Congress,  on  the  fourth  of  July;  it  was 
then  signed,  and  certified  by  the  Presi 
dent  and  Secretary,  like  other  acts.  The 
FOURTH  OF  JULY,  therefore,  is  the  AN 
NIVERSARY  OF  THE  DECLARATION.  But 
the  signatures  of  the  members  present 
were  made  to  it,  being  then  engrossed 
on  parchment,  on  the  second  day  of 
August.  Absent  members  afterwards 
signed,  as  they  came  in;  and  indeed  it 
bears  the  names  of  some  who  were  not 
chosen  members  of  Congress  until  after 
the  fourth  of  July.  The  interest  be 
longing  to  the  subject  will  be  sufficient, 
I  hope,  to  justify  these  details.1 

The  Congress  of  the  Revolution,  fel 
low-citizens,  sat  with  closed  doors,  and 
no  report  of  its  debates  was  ever  made. 
The  discussion,  therefore,  which  accom- 

1  The  official  copy  of  the  Declaration,  as  en 
grossed  and  signed  by  the  members  of  Congress, 
is  framed  and  preserved  in  the  Hall  over  the 
Patent-Office  at  Washington. 


panied  this  great  measure,  has  never 
been  preserved,  except  in  memory  and 
by  tradition.  But  it  is,  I  believe,  doing 
no  injustice  to  others  to  say,  that  the 
general  opinion  was,  and  uniformly  has 
been,  that  in  debate,  on  the  side  of  in 
dependence,  JOHN  ADAMS  had  no  equal. 
The  great  author  of  the  Declaration  him 
self  has  expressed  that  opinion  uniform 
ly  and  strongly.  "  JOHN  ADAMS,"  said 
he,  in  the  hearing  of  him  who  has  ROW 
the  honor  to  address  you,  "  JOHN  ADAMS 
was  our  colossus  on  the  floor.  Not  grace 
ful,  not  elegant,  not  always  fluent,  in 
his  public  addresses,  he  yet  came  out 
with  a  power,  both  of  thought  and  of 
expression,  which  moved  us  from  our 
seats." 

For  the  part  which  he  was  here  to 
perform,  Mr.  Adams  doubtless  was  emi 
nently  fitted.  He  possessed  a  bold  spirit, 
which  disregarded  danger,  and  a  san 
guine  reliance  on  the  goodness  of  the 
cause,  and  the  virtues  of  the  people, 
which  led  him  to  overlook  all  obstacles. 
His  character,  too,  had  been  formed  in 
troubled  times.  He  had  been  rocked  in 
the  early  storms  of  the  controversy,  and 
had  acquired  a  decision  and  a  hardihood 
proportioned  to  the  severity  of  the  disci 
pline  which  he  had  undergone. 

He  not  only  loved  the  American  cause 
devoutly,  but  had  studied  and  under 
stood  it.  It  was  all  familiar  to  him. 
He  had  tried  his  powers  on  the  ques 
tions  which  it  involved,  often  and  in 
various  ways ;  and  had  brought  to  their 
consideration  whatever  of  argument  or 
illustration  the  history  of  his  own  coun 
try,  the  history  of  England,  or  the  stores 
of  ancient  or  of  legal  learning,  could  fur 
nish.  Every  grievance  enumerated  in 
the  long  catalogue  of  the  Declaration 
had  been  the  subject  of  his  discussion, 
and  the  object  of  his  remonstrance  and 
reprobation.  From  1700,  the  Colonies, 
the  rights  of  the  Colonies,  the  liberties 
of  the  Colonies,  and  the  wrongs  inflicted 
on  the  Colonies,  had  engaged  his  con 
stant  attention;  and  it  has  surprised 
those  who  have  had  the  opportunity  of 
witnessing  it,  with  what  full  remem 
brance  and  with  what  prompt  recollec 
tion  he  could  refer,  in  his  extreme  old 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


167 


age,  to  every  act  of  Parliament  affecting 
the  Colonies,  distinguishing  and  stating 
their  respective  titles,  sections,  and  pro 
visions;  and  to  all  the  Colonial  memo 
rials,  remonstrances,  and  petitions,  with 
whatever  else  belonged  to  the  intimate 
and  exact  history  of  the  times  from  that 
year  to  1775.  It  was,  in  his  own  judg 
ment,  between  these  years  that  the 
American  people  came  to  a  full  under 
standing  and  thorough  knowledge  of 
their  rights,  and  to  a  fixed  resolution  of 
maintaining  them ;  and  bearing  himself 
an  active  part  in  all  important  transac 
tions,  the  controversy  with  England  be 
ing  then  in  effect  the  business  of  his 
life,  facts,  dates,  and  particulars  made 
an  impression  which  was  never  effaced. 
He  was  prepared,  therefore,  by  educa 
tion  and  discipline,  as  well  as  by  natural 
talent  and  natural  temperament,  for  the 
part  which  he  was  now  to  act. 

The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Adams  resem 
bled  his  general  character,  and  formed, 
indeed,  a  part  of  it.  It  was  bold,  manly, 
and  energetic;  and  such  the  crisis  re 
quired.  HWhen  public  bodies  are  to  be 
addressed  on  momentous  occasions, 
when  great  interests  are  at  stake,  and 
strong  passions  excited,  nothing  is 
valuable  in  speech  farther  than  as  it  is 
connected  with  high  intellectual  and 
moral  endowments.  Clearness,  force, 
and  earnestness  are  the  qualities  which 
produce  conviction.  True  eloquence, 
indeed,  does  not  consist  in  speech.  It 
cannot  be  brought  from  far.  Labor 
and  learning  may  toil  for  it, -but  they 
will  toil  in  vain.  Words  and  phrases 
may  be  marshalled  in  every,  way,  but 
they  cannot  compass  it.  It  must  exist 
in  the  man,  in  the  subject,  and  in  the 
occasion.  Affected  passion,  intense  ex 
pression,  the  pomp  of  declamation,  all 
may  aspire  to  it ;  they  cannot  reach  it. 
It  comes,  if  it  come  at  all,  like  the  out 
breaking  of  a  fountain  from  the  earth, 
or  the  bursting  forth  of  volcanic  fires, 
with  spontaneous,  original,  native  force.j 
The  graces  taught  in  the  schools,  the 
costly  ornaments  and  studied  contriv 
ances  of  speech,  shock  and  disgust  men, 
when  their  own  lives,  and  the  fate  of 
their  wives,  their  children,  and  their 


country,  hang  on  the  decision  of  the 
hour.  Then  words  have  lost  their 
power,  rhetoric  is  vain,  and  all  elaborate 
oratory  contemptible.  Even  genius  it 
self  then  feels  rebuked  and  subdued, 
as  in  the  presence  of  higher  qualities. 
Then  patriotism  is  eloquent;  then  self- 
devotion  is  eloquent.  The  clear  con 
ception,  outrunning  the  deductions  of 
logic,  the  high  purpose,  the  firm  resolve, 
the  dauntless  spirit,  speaking  on  the 
tongue,  beaming  from  the  eye,  inform 
ing  every  feature,  and  urging  the  whole 
man  onward,  right  onward  to  his  ob 
ject,  —  this,  this  is  eloquence ;  or  rather, 
it  is  something  greater  and  higher  than 
all  eloquence,  —  it  is  action,  noble,  sub 
lime,  godlike  action. Jl  I***" 

In  July,  1776,  the  controversy  had 
passed  the  stage  of  argument.  An 
appeal  had  been  made  to  force,  and 
opposing  armies  were  in  the  field. 
Congress,  then,  was  to  decide  whether 
the  tie  which  had  so  long  bound  us  to 
the  parent  state  was  to  be  severed  at 
once,  and  severed  for  ever.  All  the 
Colonies  had  signified  their  resolution 
to  abide  by  this  decision,  and  the  people 
looked  for  it  with  the  most  intense 
anxiety.  And  surely,  fellow-citizens, 
never,  never  were  men  called  to  a  more 
important  political  deliberation.  If  we 
contemplate  it  from  the  point  where 
they  then  stood,  no  question  could  be 
more  full  of  interest;  if  we  look  at  it 
now,  and  judge  of  its  importance  by  its 
effects,  it  appears  of  still  greater  mag 
nitude. 

Let  us,  then,  bring  before  us  the 
assembly,  which  was  about  to  decide 
a  question  thus  big  with  the  fate  of 
empire.  Let  us  open  their  doors  and 
look  in  upon  their  deliberations.  Let 
us  survey  the  anxious  and  careworn 
countenances,  let  us  hear  the  firm- toned 
voices,  of  this  band  of  patriots. 

HANCOCK  presides  over  the  solemn 
sitting;  and  one  of  those  not  yet  pre 
pared  to  pronounce  for  absolute  inde 
pendence  is  on  the  floor,  and  is  urging 
his  reasons  for  dissenting  from  the 
Declaration. 

"Let  us  pause!  This  step,  once 
taken,  cannot  be  retraced.  This  reso- 


168 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


lution,  once  passed,  will  cut  off  all  hope 
of  reconciliation.  If  success  attend  the 
arms  of  England,  we  shall  then  be  no 
longer  Colonies,  with  charters  and  with 
privileges ;  these  will  all  be  forfeited  by 
this  act ;  and  we  shall  be  in  the  condi 
tion  of  other  conquered  people,  at  the 
mercy  of  the  conquerors.  For  ourselves, 
we  may  be  ready  to  run  the  hazard ;  but 
are  we  ready  to  carry  the  country  to 
that  length?  Is  success  so  probable  as 
to  justify  it?  Where  is  the  military, 
where  the  naval  power,  by  which  we  are 
to  resist  the  whole  strength  of  the  arm 
of  England,  —  for  she  will  exert  that 
strength  to  the  utmost?  Can  we  rely 
on  the  constancy  and  perseverance  of 
the  people?  or  will  they  not  act  as  the 
people  of  other  countries  have  acted, 
and,  wearied  with  a  long  war,  submit, 
in  the  end,  to  a  worse  oppression? 
While  we  stand  on  our  old  ground,  and 
insist  on  redress  of  grievances,  we  know 
we  are  right,  and  are  not  answerable 
for  consequences.  Nothing,  then,  can 
be  imputed  to  us.  But  if  we  now 
change  our  object,  carry  our  pretensions 
farther,  and  set  up  for  absolute  inde 
pendence,  we  shall  lose  the  sympathy 
of  mankind.  We  shall  no  longer  be 
defending  what  we  possess,  but  strug 
gling  for  something  which  we  never  did 
possess,  and  which  we  have  solemnly 
and  uniformly  disclaimed  all  intention 
of  pursuing,  from  the  very  outset  of  the 
troubles.  Abandoning  thus  our  old 
ground,  of  resistance  only  to  arbitrary 
acts  of  oppression,  the  nations  will  be 
lieve  the  whole  to  have  been  mere  pre 
tence,  and  they  will  look  on  us,  not  as 
injured,  but  as  ambitious  subjects.  I 
shudder  before  this  responsibility.  It 
will  be  on  us,  if,  relinquishing  the 
ground  on  which  we  have  stood  so  long, 
and  stood  so  safely,  we  now  proclaim 
independence,  and  carry  on  the  war  for 
that  object,  while  these  cities  burn, 
these  pleasant  fields  whiten  and  bleach 
with  the  bones  of  their  owners,  and 
these  streams  run  blood.  It  will  be 
upon  us,  it  will  be  upon  us,  if,  failing 
to  maintain  this  unseasonable  and  ill- 
judged  declaration,  a  sterner  despotism, 
maintained  by  military  power,  shall  be 


established  over  our  posterity,  when  we 
ourselves,  given  up  by  an  exhausted,  a 
harassed,  a  misled  people,  shall  have 
expiated  our  rashness  and  atoned  for 
our  presumption  on  the  scaffold." 

It  was  for  Mr.  Adams  to  reply  to 
arguments  like  these.  We  know  his 
opinions,  and  we  know  his  character. 
He  would  commence  with  his  accus 
tomed  directness  and  earnestness. 

"Sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  survive 
or  perish,  I  give  my  hand  and  my  heart 
to  this  vote.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  in 
the  beginning  we  aimed  not  at  indepen 
dence.  But  there's  a  Divinity  which 
shapes  our  ends.  The  injustice  of  Eng 
land  has  driven  us  to  arms ;  and,  blinded 
to  her  own  interest  for  our  good,  she 
has  obstinately  persisted,  till  indepen 
dence  is  now  within  our  grasp.  We 
have  but  to  reach  forth  to  it,  and  it  is 
ours.  Why,  then,  should  we  defer  the 
Declaration?  Is  any  man  so  weak  as 
now  to  hope  for  a  reconciliation  with 
England,  which  shall  leave  either  safety 
to  the  country  and  its  liberties,  or  safety 
to  his  own  life  and  his  own  honor?  Are 
not  you,  Sir,  who  sit  in  that  chair,  —  is 
not  he,  our  venerable  colleague  near 
you,  —  are  you  not  both  already  the  pro 
scribed  and  predestined  objects  of  pun 
ishment  and  of  vengeance?  Cut  off  from 
all  hope  of  royal  clemency,  what  are  you, 
what  can  you  be,  while  the  power  of  Eng 
land  remains,  but  outlaws?  If  we  post 
pone  independence,  do  we  mean  to  carry 
on,  or  to  give  up,  the  war?  Do  we  mean 
to  submit  to  the  measures  of  Parliament, 
Boston  Port  Bill  and  all?  Do  we  mean 
to  submit,  and  consent  that  we  our 
selves  shall  be  ground  to  powder,  and 
our  country  and  its  rights  trodden  down 
in  the  dust?  I  know  we  do  not  mean 
to  submit.  We  never  shall  submit. 
Do  we  intend  to  violate  that  most 
solemn  obligation  ever  entered  into  by 
men,  that  plighting,  before  God,  of  our 
sacred  honor  to  Washington,  when,  put 
ting  him  forth  to  incur  the  dangers  of 
war,  as  well  as  the  political  hazards  of 
the  times,  we  promised  to  adhere  to  him, 
in  every  extremity,  with  our  fortunes 
and  our  lives?  I  know  there  is  not  a 
man  here,  who  would  not  rather  see 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


169 


a  general  conflagration  sweep  over  the 
land>  or  an  earthquake  sink  it,  than  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  that  plighted  faith  fall  to 
the  ground.  For  myself,  having,  twelve 
months  ago,  in  this  place,  moved  you, 
that  George  Washington  be  appointed 
commander  of  the  forces  raised,  or  to  be 
raised,  for  defence  of  American  liberty,1 
may  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning, 
and  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my 
mouth,  if  I  hesitate  or  waver  in  the 
support  I  give  him. 

"The  war,  then,  must  go  on.  We 
must  fight  it  through.  And  if  the  war 
must  go  on,  why  put  off  longer  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence?  That  meas 
ure  will  strengthen  us.  It  will  give  us 
character  abroad.  The  nations  will 
then  treat  with  us,  which  they  never 
can  do  while  we  acknowledge  ourselves 
subjects,  in  arms  against  our  sovereign. 
Nay,  I  maintain  that  England  herself 
will  sooner  treat  for  peace  with  us  on 
the  footing  of  independence,  than  con 
sent,  by  repealing  her  acts,  to  acknowl 
edge  that  her  whole  conduct  towards  us 
has  been  a  course  of  injustice  and  op 
pression.  Her  pride  will  be  less  wound 
ed  by  submitting  to  that  course  of 
things  which  now  predestinates  our  in 
dependence,  than  by  yielding  the  points 
in  controversy  to  her  rebellious  subjects. 
The  former  she  would  regard  as  the  re 
sult  of  fortune;  the  latter  she  would 
feel  as  her  own  deep  disgrace.  Wiry, 
then,  why  then,  Sir,  do  we  not  as  soon 
as  possible  change  this  from  a  civil  to 
a  national  war?  And  since  we  must 
fight  it  through,  why  not  put  ourselves 
in  a  state  to  enjoy  all  the  benefits  of 
victory,  if  we  gain  the  victory? 

"  If  we  fail,  it  can  be  no  worse  for  us. 
But  we  shall  not  fail.  The  cause  will 
raise  up  armies;  the  cause  will  create 
navies.  The  people,  the  people,  if  we 
are  true  to  them,  will  carry  us,  and  will 
carry  themselves,  gloriously,  through 
this  struggle.  I  care  not  how  fickle 
other  people  have  been  found.  I  know 
the  people  of  these  Colonies,  and  I 
know  that  resistance  to  British  aggres 
sion  is  deep  and  settled  in  their  hearts 

1  See  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  Vol. 
II.  p.  417  et  seq. 


and  cannot  be  eradicated.  Every  Col 
ony,  indeed,  has  expressed  its  willing 
ness  to  follow,  if  we  but  take  the  lead. 
Sir,  the  Declaration  will  inspire  the 
people  with  increased  courage.  Instead 
of  a  long  and  bloody  war  for  the  resto 
ration  of  privileges,  for  redress  of  griev 
ances,  for  chartered  immunities,  held 
under  a  British  king,  set  before  them 
the  glorious  object  of  entire  indepen 
dence,  and  it  will  breathe  into  them 
anew  the  breath  of  life.  Read  this 
Declaration  at  the  head  of  the  army; 
every  sword  will  be  drawn  from  its 
scabbard,  and  the  solemn  vow  uttered, 
to  maintain  it,  or  to  perish  on  the  bed 
of  honor.  Publish  it  from  the  pulpit; 
religion  will  approve  it,  and  the  love  of 
religious  liberty  will  cling  round  it,  re 
solved  to  stand  with  it,  or  fall  with  it. 
Send  it  to  the  public  halls ;  proclaim  it 
there;  let  them  hear  it  who  heard  the 
first  roar  of  the  enemy's  cannon;  let 
them  see  it  who  saw  their  brothers  and 
their  sons  fall  on  the  field  of  Bunker 
Hill,  and  in  the  streets  of  Lexington 
and  Concord,  and  the  very  walls  will 
cry  out  in  its  support. 

"Sir,  I  know  the  uncertainty  of 
human  affairs,  but  I  see,  I  see  clearly, 
through  this  day's  business.  You  and 
I,  indeed,  may  rue  it.  We  may  not 
live  to  the  time  when  this  Declaration 
shall  be  made  good.  We  may  die ;  die 
colonists;  die  slaves;  die,  it  may  be,  ig- 
nominiously  and  on  the  scaffold.  Be  it 
so.  Be  it  so.  If  it  be  the  pleasure  of 
Heaven  that  my  country  shall  require 
the  poor  offering  of  my  life,  the  victim 
shall  be  ready,  at  the  appointed  hour  of 
sacrifice,  come  when  that  hour  may. 
But  while  I  do  live,  let  me  have  a 
country,  or  at  least  the  hope  of  a  coun 
try,  and  that  a  free  country. 

"  But  whatever  may  be  our  fate,  be 
assured,  be  assured  that  this  Declara 
tion  will  stand.  It  may  cost  treasure, 
and  it  may  cost  blood;  but  it  will  stand, 
and  it  will  richly  compensate  for  both. 
Through  the  thick  gloom  of  the  present, 
I  see  the  brightness  of  the  future,  as 
the  sun  in  heaven.  We  shall  make  this 
a  glorious,  an  immortal  day.  When 
we  are  in  our  graves,  our  children  will 


170 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


honor  it.  They  will  celebrate  it  with 
thanksgiving,  with  festivity,  with  bon 
fires,  and  illuminations.  On  its  annual 
return  they  will  shed  tears,  copious, 
gushing  tears,  not  of  subjection  and 
slavery,  not  of  agony  and  distress,  but 
of  exultation,  of  gratitude,  and  of  joy. 
Sir,  before  God,  I  believe  the  hour  is 
come.  My  judgment  approves  this 
measure,  and  my  whole  heart  is  in  it. 
All  that  I  have,  and  all  that  I  am,  and 
all  that  I  hope,  in  this  life,  I  am  now 
ready  here  to  stake  upon  it ;  and  I  leave 
off  as  I  begun,  that  live  or  die,  survive 
or  perish,  I  am  for  the  Declaration.  It 
is  my  living  sentiment,  and  by  the  bless 
ing  of  God  it  shall  be  my  dying  senti 
ment,  Independence  now,  and  INDEPEN 
DENCE  FOR  EVER."1 

And  so  that  day  shall  be  honored, 
illustrious  prophet  and  patriot!  so  that 
day  shall  be  honored,  and  as  often  as  it 
returns,  thy  renown  shall  come  along 
with  it,  and  the  glory  of  thy  life,  like 
the  day  of  thy  death,  shall  not  fail  from 
the  remembrance  of  men. 

It  would  be  unjust,  fellow-citizens, 
on  this  occasion,  while  we  express  our 
veneration  for  him  who  is  the  imme 
diate  subject  of  these  remarks,  were  we 
to  omit  a  most  respectful,  affectionate, 
and  grateful  mention  of  those  other 
great  men,  his  colleagues,  who  stood 
with  him,  and  with  the  same  spirit, 
the  same  devotion,  took  part  in  the  in 
teresting  transaction.  HANCOCK,  the 
proscribed  HANCOCK,  exiled  from  his 
home  by  a  military  governor,  cut  off  by 
proclamation  from  the  mercy  of  the 
crown,  —  Heaven  reserved  for  him  the 
distinguished  honor  of  putting  this 
great  question  to  the  vote,  and  of  writ 
ing  his  own  name  first,  and  most  con 
spicuously,  on  that  parchment  which 
spoke  defiance  to  the  power  of  the 
crown  of  England.  There,  too,  is  the 
name  of  that  other  proscribed  patriot, 
SAMUEL  ADAMS,  a  man  who  hungered 
and  thirsted  for  the  independence  of  his 
country,  who  thought  the  Declaration 
halted  and  lingered,  being  himself  not 

1  On  the  authorship  of  this  speech,  see  Note 
at  the  end  of  the  Discourse. 


only  ready,  but  eager,  for  it,  long  before 
it  was  proposed;  a  man  of  the  deepest 
sagacity,  the  clearest  foresight,  and  the 
profoundest  judgment  in  men.  And 
there  is  CERRY,  himself  among  the  ear 
liest  and  the  foremost  of  the  patriots, 
found,  when  the  battle  of  Lexington 
summoned  them  to  common  counsels, 
by  the  side  of  WARREN;  a  man  who 
lived  to  serve  his  country  at  home  and 
abroad,  and  to  die  in  the  second  place 
in  the  government.  There,  too,  is  the 
inflexible,  the  upright,  the  Spartan 
character,  ROBERT  TREAT  PAINE.  He 
also  lived  to  serve  his  country  through 
the  struggle,  and  then  withdrew  from 
her  councils,  only  that  he  might  give  his 
labors  and  his  life  to  his  native  State, 
in  another  relation.  These  names, 
fellow-citizens,  are  the  treasures  of  the 
Commonwealth ;  and  they  are  treasures 
which  grow  brighter  by  time. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  resume  the  nar 
rative,  and  to  finish  with  great  brevity 
the  notice  of  the  lives  of  those  whose 
virtues  and  services  we  have  met  to 
commemorate. 

Mr.  Adams  remained  in  Congress 
from  its  first  meeting  till  November, 
1777,  when  he  was  appointed  Minister 
to  France.  Pie  proceeded  on  that  ser 
vice  in  the  February  following,  em 
barking  in  the  frigate  Boston,  from  the 
shore  of  his  native  town,  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Wollaston.  The  year  following, 
he  was  appointed  commissioner  to  treat 
of  peace  with  England.  Returning  to 
the  United  States,  he  was  a  dele 
gate  from  Braintree  in  the  Convention 
for  framing  the  Constitution  of  this 
Commonwealth,  in  1780. 2  At  the  latter 
end  of  the  same  year,  he  again  went 
abroad  in  the  diplomatic  service  of  the 
country,  and  was  employed  at  various 
courts,  and  occupied  with  various  ne 
gotiations,  until  1788.  The  particu 
lars  of  these  interesting  and  important 
services  this  occasion  does  not  allow 
time  to  relate.  In  178'2  he  concluded 
our  first  treaty  with  Holland.  His  ne- 

2  In  this  Convention  he  served  as  chairman 
of  the  committee  for  preparing  the  draft  of  a 
Constitution. 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


171 


gotiations  with  that  republic,  his  efforts 
to  persuade  the  States- General  to  recog 
nize  our  ni dependence,  his  incessant 
and  indefatigable  exertions  to  represent 
the  American  cause  favorably  on  the 
Continent,  and  to  counteract  the  designs 
of  its  enemies,  open  and  secret,  and  his 
successful  undertaking  to  obtain  loans 
on  the  credit  of  a  nation  yet  new  and 
unknown,  are  among  his  most  arduous, 
most  useful,  most  honorable  services. 
It  was  his  fortune  to  bear  a  part  in  the 
negotiation  for  peace  with  England, 
and  in  something  more  than  six  years 
from  the  Declaration  which  he  had  so 
strenuously  supported,  he  had  the  satis 
faction  of  seeing  the  minister  plenipo 
tentiary  of  the  crown  subscribe  his 
name  to  the  instrument  which  declared 
that  his  "  Britannic  Majesty  acknowl 
edged  the  United  States  to  be  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent. "  In  these 
important  transactions,  Mr.  Adams's 
conduct  received  the  marked  approba 
tion  of  Congress  and  of  the  country. 

While  abroad,  in  1787,  he  published 
his  "  Defence  of  the  American  Constitu 
tions";  a  work  of  merit  and  ability, 
though  composed  with  haste,  on  the 
spur  of  a  particular  occasion,  in  the 
midst  of  other  occupations,  and  under 
circumstances  not  admitting  of  careful 
revision.  The  immediate  object  of  the 
work  was  to  counteract  the  weight  of 
opinions  advanced  by  several  popular 
European  writers  of  that  day,  M.  Tur- 
got,  the  Abbe  de  Mably,  and  Dr.  Price, 
at  a  time  when  the  people  of  the  United 
States  wrere  employed  in  forming  and 
revising  their  systems  of  government. 

Returning  to  the  United  States  in 
1788,  he  found  the  new  government 
about  going  into  operation,  and  was 
himself  elected  the  first  Vice-President, 
a  situation  which  he  filled  with  reputa 
tion  for  eight  years,  at  the  expiration  of 
which  he  was  raised  to  the  Presidential 
chair,  as  immediate  successor  to  the  im 
mortal  Washington.  In  this  high  sta 
tion  he  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Jefferson, 
after  a  memorable  controversy  between 
their  respective  friends,  in  1801;  and 
from  that  period  his  manner  of  life  has 
been  known  to  all  who  hear  me.  He 


has  lived,  for  five-and-twenty  years, 
with  every  enjoyment  that  could  render 
old  age  happy.  Not  inattentive  to  the 
occurrences  of  the  times,  political  cares 
have  yet  not  materially,  or  for  any  long 
time,  disturbed  his  repose.  In  1820  he 
acted  as  Elector  of  President  and  Vice- 
President,  and  in  the  same  year  we  saw 
him,  then  at  the  age  of  eighty-five,  a 
member  of  the  Convention  of  this 
Commonwealth  called  to  revise  the 
Constitution.  Forty  years  before,  he 
had  been  one  of  those  who  formed  that 
Constitution ;  and  he  had  now  the  pleas 
ure  of  witnessing  that  there  was  little 
which  the  people  desired  to  change.1 
Possessing  all  his  faculties  to  the  end  of 
his  long  life,  with  an  unabated  love 
of  reading  and  contemplation,  in  the 
centre  of  interesting  circles  of  friend 
ship  and  affection,  he  was  blessed  in  his 
retirement  with  whatever  of  repose  and 
felicity  the  condition  of  man  allows. 
He  had,  also,  other  enjoyments.  He 
saw  around  him  that  prosperity  and 
general  happiness  which  had  been  the 
object  of  his  public  cares  and  labors. 
No  man  ever  beheld  more  clearly,  and 
for  a  longer  time,  the  great  and  benefi 
cial  effects  of  the  services  rendered  by 
himself  to  his  country.  That  liberty 
which  he  so  early  defended,  that  inde 
pendence  of  which  he  was  so  able  an 
advocate  and  supporter,  he  saw,  we 
trust,  firmly  and  securely  established. 
The  population  of  the  country  thick 
ened  around  him  faster,  and  extended 
wider,  than  his  own  sanguine  predic 
tions  had  anticipated;  and  the  wealth, 
respectability,  and  power  of  the  nation 
sprang  up  to  a  magnitude  which  it  is 
quite  impossible  he  could  have  expected 
to  witness  in  his  day.  He  lived  also  to 
behold  those  principles  of  civil  freedom 
which  had  been  developed,  established, 

1  Upon  the  organization  of  this  body,  15th 
November.  1820,  John  Adams  was  elected  its 
President;  an  office  which  the  infirmities  of  age 
compelled  him  to  decline.  For  the  interesting 
proceedings  of  the  Convention  on  this  occasion, 
the  address  of  Chief  Justice  Parker,  and  the  re 
ply  of  Mr.  Adams,  see  Journal  of  Debates  and 
Proceedings  in  the  Convention  of  Delegates 
chosen  to  revise  the  Constitution  of  Massachu 
setts,  p.  8  et  seq. 


172 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


and  practically  applied  in  America,  at 
tract  attention,  command  respect,  and 
awaken  imitation,  in  other  regions  of  the 
globe;  and  well  might,  and  well  did,  he 
exclaim,  "  Where  will  the  consequences 
of  the  American  Revolution  end?  " 

If  any  thing  yet  remain  to  fill  this  cup 
of  happiness,  let  it  be  added,  that  he 
lived  to  see  a  great  and  intelligent  peo 
ple  bestow  the  highest  honor  in  their 
gift  where  he  had  bestowed  his  own 
kindest  parental  affections  and  lodged 
his  fondest  hopes.  Thus  honored  in 
life,  thus  happy  at  death,  he  saw  the 
JUBILEE,  and  he  died;  and  with  the  last 
prayers  which  trembled  on  his  lips  was 
the  fervent  supplication  for  his  country, 
* '  Independence  for  ever ! "  l 

Mr.  Jefferson,  having  been  occupied 
in  the  years  1778  and  1779  in  the  impor 
tant  service  of  revising  the  laws  of  Vir 
ginia,  was  elected  Governor  of  that 
State,  as  successor  to  Patrick  Henry, 
and  held  the  situation  when  the  State 
was  invaded  by  the  British  arms.  In 
1781  he  published  his  Notes  on  Virginia, 
a  work  which  attracted  attention  in 
Europe  as  well  as  America,  dispelled 
many  misconceptions  respecting  this 
continent,  and  gave  its  author  a  place 
among  men  distinguished  for  science. 
In  November,  1783,  he  again  took  his 
seat  in  the  Continental  Congress,  but  in 
the  May  following  was  appointed  Minis 
ter  Plenipotentiary,  to  act  abroad,  in  the 
negotiation  of  commercial  treaties,  with 
Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Acla-ms.  He  pro 
ceeded  to  France,  in  execution  of  this 
mission,  embarking  at  Boston;  and  that 
was  the  only  occasion  on  which  he  ever 
visited  this  place.  In  1785  he  was  ap 
pointed  Minister  to  France,  the  duties 
of  which  situation  he  continued  to  per 
form  until  October,  1789,  when  he  ob 
tained  leave  to  retire,  just  on  the  eve  of 
that  tremendous  revolution  which  has  so 
much  agitated  the  world  in  our  times. 
Mr.  Jefferson's  discharge  of  his  diplo 
matic  duties  was  marked  by  great  ability, 
diligence,  and  patriotism;  and  while  he 

1  For  an  account  of  Mr.  Webster's  last  inter 
view  with  Mr.  Adams,  see  March's  Reminis 
cences  of  Congress,  p.  62. 


resided  at  Paris,  in  one  of  the  most  in 
teresting  periods,  his  character  for  intel 
ligence,  his  love  of  knowledge  and  of 
the  society  of  learned  men,  distinguished 
him  in  the*highest  circles  of  the  French 
capital.  No  court  in  Europe  had  at 
that  time  in  Paris  a  representative  com 
manding  or  enjoying  higher  regard,  for 
political  knowledge  or  for  general  at 
tainments,  than  the  minister  of  this 
then  infant  republic.  Immediately  on 
his  return  to  his  native  country,  at  the 
organization  of  the  government  under 
the  present  Constitution,  his  talents  and 
experience  recommended  him  to  Presi 
dent  Washington  for  the  first  office  in 
his  gift.  He  was  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  Department  of  State.  In  this  situ 
ation,  also,  he  manifested  conspicuous 
ability.  His  correspondence  with  the 
ministers  of  other  powers  residing  here, 
and  his  instructions  to  our  own  diplo 
matic  agents  abroad,  are  among  our 
ablest  state  papers.  A  thorough  knowl 
edge  of  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations, 
perfect  acquaintance  with  the  immediate 
subject  before  him,  great  felicity,  and 
still  greater  facility,  in  writing,  show 
themselves  in  whatever  effort  his  official 
situation  called  on  him  to  make.  It  is 
believed  by  competent  judges,  that  the 
diplomatic  intercourse  of  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  from  the  first 
meeting  of  the  Continental  Congress,  in 
1774  to  the  present  time,  taken  together, 
would  not  suffer,  in  respect  to  the  talent 
with  which  it  has  been  conducted,  by 
comparison  with  any  thing  which  other 
and  older  governments  can  produce ;  and 
to  the  attainment  of  this  respectability 
and  distinction  Mr.  Jefferson  has  con 
tributed  his  full  part. 

On  the  retirement  of  General  Wash 
ington  from  the  Presidency,  and  the 
election  of  Mr.  Adams  to  that  office  in 
1797,  he  was  chosen  Vice-President. 
While  presiding  in  this  capacity  over 
the  deliberations  of  the  Senate,  he  com 
piled  and  published  a  Manual  of  Parlia 
mentary  Practice,  a  work  of  more  labor 
and  more  merit  than  is  indicated  by  its 
size.  It  is  now  received  as  the  general 
standard  by  which  proceedings  are  reg 
ulated,  not  only  in  both  Houses  of  Con- 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


173 


gress,  but  in  most  of  the  other  legislative 
bodies  in  the  country.  In  1801  he  was 
elected  President,  in  opposition  to  Mr. 
Adams,  and  re-elected  in  1805,  by  a  vote 
approaching  towards  unanimity. 

From  the  time  of  his  final  retirement 
from  public  life,  in  1809,  Mr.  Jefferson 
lived  as  became  a  wise  man.  Surrounded 
by  affectionate  friends,  his  ardor  in  the 
pursuit  of  knowledge  undiminished, 
with  uncommon  health  and  unbroken 
spirits,  he  was  able  to  enjoy  largely  the 
rational  pleasures  of  life,  and  to  partake 
in  that  public  prosperity  which  he  had 
so  much  contributed  to  produce.  His 
kindness  and  hospitality,  the  charm  of 
his  conversation,  the  ease  of  his  man 
ners,  the  extent  of  his  acquirements, 
and,  especially,  the  full  store  of  Revolu 
tionary  incidents  which  he  had  treas 
ured  in  his  memory,  and  which  he  knew 
\vhen  and  how  to  dispense,  rendered  his 
abode  in  a  high  degree  attractive  to  his 
admiring  countrymen,  while  his  high 
public  and  scientific  character  drew 
towards  him  every  intelligent  and  edu 
cated  traveller  from  abroad.  Both  Mr. 
Adams  and  Mr.  Jefferson  had  the  pleas 
ure  of  knowing  that  the  respect  which 
they  so  largely  received  was  not  paid  to 
their  official  stations.  They  were  not 
men  made  great  by  office;  but  great 
men,  on  whom  the  country  for  its  own 
benefit  had  conferred  office.  There  was 
that  in  them  which  office  did  not  give, 
and  which  the  relinquishment  of  office 
did  not,  and  could  not,  take  away.  In 
their  retirement,  in  the  midst  of  their 
fellow-citizens,  themselves  private  citi 
zens,  they  enjoyed  as  high  regard  and 
esteem  as  when  filling  the  most  impor 
tant  places  of  public  trust. 

There  remained  to  Mr.  Jefferson  yet 
one  other  work  of  patriotism  and  benefi 
cence,  the  establishment  of  a  university 
in  his  native  State.  To  this  object  he 
devoted  years  of  incessant  and  anxious 
attention,  and  by  the  enlightened  liber 
ality  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  and 
the  co-operation  of  other  able  and  zeal 
ous  friends,  he  lived  to  see  it  accom 
plished.  May  all  success  attend  this 
infant  seminary;  and  may  those  who 
enjoy  its  advantages,  as  often  as  their 


eyes  shall  rest  on  the  neighboring  height, 
recollect  what  they  owe  to  their  disin 
terested  and  indefatigable  benefactor; 
and  may  letters  honor  him  who  thus  la 
bored  in  the  cause  of  letters ! 1 

Thus  useful,  and  thus  respected,  passed 
the  old  age  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  But 
time  was  on  its  ever-ceaseless  wing,  and 
was  now  bringing  the  last  hour  of  this 
illustrious  man.  He  saw  its  approach 
with  undisturbed  serenity.  He  counted 
the  moments  as  they  passed,  and  beheld 
that  his  last  sands  were  falling.  That 
day,  too,  was  at  hand  which  he  had 
helped  to  make  immortal.  One  wish, 
one  hope,  if  it  were  not  presumptuous, 
beat  in  his  fainting  breast.  Could  it  be 
so,  might  it  please  God,  he  would  desire 
once  more  to  see  the  sun,  once  more  to 
look  abroad  on  the  scene  around  him, 
on  the  great  day  of  liberty.  Heaven,  in 
its  mercy,  fulfilled  that  prayer.  He  saw 
that  sun,  he  enjoyed  its  sacred  light,  he 
thanked  God  for  this  mercy,  and  bowed 
his  aged  head  to  the  grave.  "  Felix, 
non  vitae  tan  turn  claritate,  sed  etiam  op- 
port  imitate  mortis." 

The  last  public  labor  of  Mr.  Jefferson 
naturally  suggests  the  expression  of  the 
high  praise  which  is  due,  both  to  him 
and  to  Mr.  Adams,  for  their  uniform 
and  zealous  attachment  to  learning,  and 
to  the  cause  of  general  knowledge.  Of 
the  advantages  of  learning,  indeed,  and 
of  literary  accomplishments,  their  own 
characters  were  striking  recommenda 
tions  and  illustrations.  They  were  schol 
ars,  ripe  and  good  scholars;  widely 
acquainted  with  ancient,  as  well  as  mod 
ern  literature,  and  not  altogether  unin- 
structed  in  the  deeper  sciences.  Their 
acquirements,  doubtless,  were  different, 
and  so  were  the  particular  objects  of 

1  Mr.  Jefferson  himself  considered  his  ser 
vices  in  establishing  the  University  of  Virginia 
as  among  the  most  important  rendered  by  him 
to  the  country.  In  Mr.  "VVirt's  Eulogy,  it  is 
stated  that  a  private  memorandum  was  found 
among  his  papers,  containing  the  following  in 
scription  to  be  placed  on  his  monument :  — 
"Here  was  buried  Thomas  Jefferson.  Author  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  of  the  Statutes 
of  Virginia  for  Religious  Freedom,  and  Father 
of  the  University  of  Virginia."  Eulogies  on 
Adams  and  Jefferson,  p.  426. 


174 


ADAMS   AND  JEFFERSON. 


their  literary  pursuits;  as  their  tastes 
and  characters,  in  these  respects,  dif 
fered  like  those  of  other  men.  Being, 
also,  men  of  busy  lives,  with  great  ob 
jects  requiring  action  constantly  before 
them,  their  attainments  in  letters  did 
not  become  showy  or  obtrusive.  Yet  I 
would  hazard  the  opinion,  that,  if  we 
could  now  ascertain  all  the  causes  which 
gave  them  eminence  and  distinction  in 
the  midst  of  the  great  men  with  whom 
they  acted,  we  should  find  not  among 
the  least  their  early  acquisitions  in  liter 
ature,  the  resources  which  it  furnished, 
the  promptitude  and  facility  which  it 
communicated,  and  the  wide  field  it 
opened  for  analogy  and  illustration; 
giving  them  thus,  on  every  subject,  a 
larger  view  and  a  broader  range,  as  well 
for  discussion  as  for  the  government  of 
their  own  conduct. 

Literature  sometimes  disgusts,  and 
pretension  to  it  much  oftener  disgusts, 
by  appearing  to  hang  loosely  on  the 
character,  like  something  foreign  or  ex 
traneous,  not  a  part,  but  an  ill-adjusted 
appendage;  or  by  seeming  to  overload 
and  weigh  it  down  by  its  unsightly  bulk, 
like  the  productions  of  bad  taste  in 
architecture,  where  there  is  massy  and 
cumbrous  ornament  without  strength  or 
solidity  of  column.  This  has  exposed 
learning,  and  especially  classical  learn 
ing,  to  reproach.  Men  have  seen  that 
it  might  exist  without  mental  superi 
ority,  without  vigor,  without  good  taste, 
and  without  utility.  But  in  such  cases 
classical  learning  has  only  not  inspired 
natural  talent;  or,  at  most,  it  has  but 
made  original  feebleness  of  intellect,  and 
natural  bluntness  of  perception,  some 
thing  more  conspicuous.  The  question, 
after  all,  if  it  be  a  question,  is,  whether 
literature,  ancient  as  well  as  modern, 
does  not  assist  a  good  understanding, 
improve  natural  good  taste,  add  polished 
armor  to  native  strength,  and  render  its 
possessor,  not  only  more  capable  of  de 
riving  private  happiness  from  contem 
plation  and  reflection,  but  more  accom 
plished  also  for  action  in  the  affairs  of 
life,  and  especially  for  public  action. 
Those  whose  memories  we  now  honor 
were  learned  men ;  but  their  learning 


was  kept  in  its  proper  place,  and  made 
subservient  to  the  uses  and  objects  of 
life.  They  were  scholars,  not  common 
nor  superficial;  but  their  scholarship 
was  so  i»  keeping  with  their  character, 
so  blended  and  inwrought,  that  careless 
observers,  or  bad  judges,  not  seeing  an 
ostentatious  display  of  it,  might  infer 
that  it  did  not  exist;  forgetting,  or  not 
knowing,  that  classical  learning  in  men 
who  act  in  conspicuous  public  stations, 
perform  duties  which  exercise  the  faculty 
of  writing,  or  address  popular,  deliber 
ative,  or  judicial  bodies,  is  often  felt 
where  it  is  little  seen,  and  sometimes 
felt  more  effectually  because  it  is  not 
seen  at  all. 

But  the  cause  of  knowledge,  in  a  more 
enlarged  sense,  the  cause  of  general 
knowledge  and  of  popular  education, 
had  no  warmer  friends,  nor  more  pow 
erful  advocates,  than  Mr.  Adams  and 
Mr.  Jefferson.  On  this  foundation  they 
knew  the  whole  republican  system  rested ; 
and  this  great  and  all-important  truth 
they  strove  to  impress,  by  all  the  means 
in  their  power.  In  the  early  publication 
already  referred  to,  Mr.  Adams  ex 
presses  the.  strong  and  just  sentiment, 
that  the  education  of  the  poor  is  more 
important,  even  to  the  rich  themselves, 
than  all  their  own  riches.  On  this 
great  truth,  indeed,  is  founded  that  un 
rivalled,  that  invaluable  political  and 
moral  institution,  our  own  blessing  and 
the  glory  of  our  fathers,  the  Xew  Eng 
land  system  of  free  schools. 

As  the  promotion  of  knowledge  had 
been  the  object  of  their  regard  through 
life,  so  these  great  men  made  it  the  sub 
ject  of  their  testamentary  bounty.  Mr. 
Jefferson  is  understood  to  have  be 
queathed  his  library  to  the  University  of 
Virginia,  and  that  of  Mr.  Adams  is  be 
stowed  on  the  inhabitants  of  Quincy. 

Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  fellow- 
citizens,  were  successively  Presidents  of 
the  United  States.  The  comparative 
merits  of  their  respective  administra 
tions  for  a  long  time  agitated  and  di 
vided  public  opinion.  They  were  rivals, 
each  supported  by  numerous  and  power 
ful  portions  of  the  people,  for  the  high 
est  office.  This  contest,  partly  the  cause 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


175 


and  partly  the  consequence  of  the  long 
existence  of  two  great  political  parties 
in  the  country,  is  now  part  of  the  his 
tory  of  our  government.  We  may  nat 
urally  regret  that  any  thing  should  have 
occurred  to  create  difference  and  discord 
between  those  who  had  acted  harmoni 
ously  and  efficiently  in  the  great  con 
cerns  of  the  Revolution.  But  this  is 
not  the  time,  nor  this  the  occasion,  for  en 
tering  into  the  grounds  of  that  differ 
ence,  or  for  attempting  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  the  questions  which  it  involves. 
As  practical  questions,  they  were  can 
vassed  when  the  measures  which  they 
regarded  were  acted  on  and  adopted; 
and  as  belonging  to  history,  the  time 
has  not  come  for  their  consideration. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  wonderful,  that, 
when  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  first  went  into  operation,  differ 
ent  opinions  should  be  entertained  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  powers  conferred  by  it. 
Here  was  a  natural  source  of  diversity 
of  sentiment.  It  is  still  less  wonderful, 
that  that  event,  nearly  contemporary 
with  our  government  under  the  present 
Constitution,  which  so  entirely  shocked 
all  Europe,  and  disturbed  our  relations 
with  her  leading  powers,  should  be 
thought,  by  different  men,  to  have  dif 
ferent  bearings  on  our  own  prosperity ; 
and  that  the  early  measures  adopted  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  in 
consequence  of  this  new  state  of  things, 
should  be  seen  in  opposite  lights.  It  is 
for  the  future  historian,  when  what  now 
remains  of  prejudice  and  misconception 
shall  have  passed  away,  to  state  these 
different  opinions,  and  pronounce  im 
partial  judgment.  In  the  mean  time, 
all  good  men  rejoice,  and  well  may  re 
joice,  that  the  sharpest  differences  sprung 
out  of  measures  which,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  have  ceased  with  the  exigencies 
that  gave  them  birth,  and  have  left  no 
permanent  effect,  either  on  the  Consti 
tution  or  on  the  general  prosperity  of  the 
country.  This  remark,  I  am  aware,  may 
be  supposed  to  have  its  exception  in  one 
measure,  the  alteration  of  the  Constitu 
tion  as  to  the  mode  of  choosing  Presi 
dent  ;  but  it  is  true  in  its  general  appli 
cation.  Thus  the  course  of  policy 


pursued  towards  France  in  1798,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  measures  of  commer 
cial  restriction  commenced  in  1807,  on 
the  other,  both  subjects  of  warm  and 
severe  opposition,  have  passed  away  and 
left  nothing  behind  them.  They  were 
temporary,  and,  whether  wise  or  unwise, 
their  consequences  were  limited  to  their 
respective  occasions.  It  is  equally  clear, 
at  the  same  time,  and  it  is  equally  grat 
ifying,  that  those  measures  of  both  ad 
ministrations  which  were  of  durable 
importance,  and  which  drew  after  them 
momentous  and  long  remaining  conse 
quences,  have  received  general  appro 
bation.  Such  was  the  organization,  or 
rather  the  creation,  of  the  navy,  in  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Adams ;  such  the 
acquisition  of  Louisiana  in  that  of  Mr. 
Jefferson.  The  country,  it  may  safely 
be  added,  is  not  likely  to  be  willing 
either  to  approve,  or  to  reprobate,  indis 
criminately,  and  in  the  aggregate,  all 
the  measures  of  either,  or  of  any,  ad 
ministration.  The  dictate  of  reason 
and  of  justice  is,  that,  holding  each  one 
his  own  sentiments  on  the  points  of 
difference,  we  imitate  the  great  men 
themselves  in  the  forbearance  and  mod 
eration  which  they  have  cherished,  and 
in  the  mutual  respect  and  kindness 
which  they  have  been  so  much  inclined 
to  feel  and  to  reciprocate. 

No  men,  fellow-citizens,  ever  served 
their  country  with  more  entire  exemp 
tion  from  every  imputation  of  selfish  and 
mercenary  motives,  than  those  to  whose 
memory  we  are  paying  these  proofs  of 
respect.  A  suspicion  of  any  disposi 
tion  to  enrich  themselves  or  to  profit  by 
their  public  employments,  never  rested 
on  either.  No  sordid  motive  approached 
them.  The  inheritance  which  they  have 
left  to  their  children  is  of  their  charac 
ter  and  their  fame. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  will  detain  you  no 
longer  by  this  faint  and  feeble  tribute 
to  the  memory  of  the  illustrious  dead. 
Even  in  other  hands,  adequate  justice 
could  not  be  done  to  them,  within  the 
limits  of  this  occasion.  Their  highest, 
their  best  praise,  is  your  deep  conviction 
of  their  merits,  your  affectionate  grati 
tude  for  their  labors  and  their  services. 


176 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


It  is  not  my  voice,  it  is  this  cessation  of 
ordinary  pursuits,  this  arresting  of  all 
attention,  these  solemn  ceremonies,  and 
this  crowded  house,  which  speak  their 
eulogy.  Their  fame,  indeed,  is  safe. 
That  is  now  treasured  up  beyond  the 
reach  of  accident.  Although  no  sculp 
tured  marble  should  rise  to  their  mem 
ory,  nor  engraved  stone  bear  record  of 
their  deeds,  yet  will  their  remembrance 
be  as  lasting  as  the  land  they  'honored. 
Marble  columns  may,  indeed,  moulder 
into  dust,  time  may  erase  all  impress 
from  the  crumbling  stone,  but  their 
fame  remains;  for  with  AMERICAN  LIB 
ERTY  it  rose,  and  with  AMERICAN  LIB 
ERTY  ONLY  can  it  perish.  It  was  the 
last  swelling  peal  of  yonder  choir, 
*'  THEIR  BODIES  ARE  BURIED  IN  PEACE, 

BUT    THEIR  NAME  LIVETH  EVERMORE." 

I  catch  that  solemn  song,  I  echo  that 
lofty  strain  of  funeral  triumph,  "  THEIR 

NAME  LIVETH  EVERMORE." 

Of  the  illustrious  signers  of  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence  there  now  re 
mains  only  CHARLES  CARROLL.  He 
seems  an  aged  oak,  standing  alone  on 
the  plain,  which  time  has  spared  a  little 
longer  after  all  its  contemporaries  have 
been  levelled  with  the  dust.  Venerable 
object  1  we  delight  to  gather  round  its 
trunk,  while  yet  it  stands,  and  to  dwell 
beneath  its  shadow.  Sole  survivor  of 
an  assembly  of  as  great  men  as  the 
•world  has  witnessed,  in  a  transaction 
one  of  the  most  important  that  history 
records,  what  thoughts,  what  interesting 
reflections,  must  fill  his  elevated  and 
devout  soul !  If  he  dwell  on  the  past, 
how  touching  its  recollections;  if  he  sur 
vey  the  present,  how  happy,  how  joyous, 
how  full  of  the  fruition  of  that  hope  which 
his  ardent  patriotism  indulged;  if  he 
glance  at  the  future,  how  does  the  prospect 
of  his  country's  advancement  almost  be 
wilder  his  weakened  conception !  Fortu 
nate,  distinguished  patriot !  Interesting 
relic  of  the  past !  Let  him  know  that, 
while  we  honor  the  dead,  we  do  not  for 
get  the  living;  and  that  there  is  not  a 
heart  here  which  does  not  fervently  pray 
that  Heaven  may  keep  him  yet  back 
from  (he  society  of  his  companions. 


And  now,  fellow-citizens,  let  us  not  re 
tire  from  this  occasion  without  a  deep  and 
solemn  conviction  of  the  duties  which 
have  devolved  upon  us.  This  lovely  land, 
this  glorious  liberty,  these  benign  insti 
tutions,  the  dear  purchase  of  our  fathers, 
are  ours;  ours  to  enjoy,  ours  to  preserve, 
ours  to  transmit.  Generations  past  and 
generations  to  come  hold  us  responsible 
for  this  sacred  trust.  Our  fathers,  from 
behind,  admonish  us,  with  their  anxious 
paternal  voices;  posterity  calls  out  to  us, 
from  the  bosom  of  the  future ;  the  world 
turns  hither  its  solicitous  eyes;  all,  all 
conjure  us  to  act  wisely,  and  faithfully, 
in  the  relation  which  we  sustain.  We 
can  never,  indeed,  pay  the  debt  which  is 
upon  us;  but  by  virtue,  by  morality,  by 
religion,  by  the  cultivation  of  every 
good  principle  and  every  good  habit, 
we  may  hope  to  enjoy  the  blessing, 
through  our  day,  and  to  leave  it  un 
impaired  to  our  children.  Let  us  feel 
deeply  how  much  of  what  we  are  and  of 
what  we  possess  we  owe  to  this  liberty, 
and  to  these  institutions  of  government. 
Nature  has,  indeed,  given  us  a  soil  which 
yields  bounteously  to  the  hand  of  in 
dustry,  the  mighty  and  fruitful  ocean  is 
before  us,  and  the  skies  over  our  heads 
shed  health  and  vigor.  But  what  are 
lands,  and  seas,  and  skies,  to  civilized 
man,  without  society,  without  knowl 
edge,  without  morals,  without  religious 
culture ;  and  how  can  these  be  enjoyed, 
in  all  their  extent  and  all  their  excel 
lence,  but  under  the  protection  of  wise 
institutions  and  a  free  government?  Fel 
low-citizens,  there  is  not  one  of  us,  there 
is  not  one  of  us  here  present,  who  does 
not,  at  this  moment,  and  at  every  mo 
ment,  experience,  in  his  own  condition, 
and  in  the  condition  of  those  most  near 
and  dear  to  him,  the  influence  and  the 
benefits  of  this  liberty  and  these  insti 
tutions.  Let  us  then  acknowledge  the 
blessing,  let  us  feel  it  deeply  and  power 
fully,  let  us  cherish  a  strong  affection 
for  it,  and  resolve  to  maintain  and  per 
petuate  it.  The  blood  of  our  fathers, 
let  it  not  have  been  shed  in  vain ;  the 
great  hope  of  posterity,  let  it  not  be 
blasted. 

The  striking  attitude,  too,  ill  which 


ADAMS   AND  JEFFERSON. 


177 


we  stand  to  the  world  around  us,  a  topic 
to  which,  I  fear,  I  advert  too  often,  and 
dwell  on  too  long,  cannot  be  altogether 
omitted  here.  Neither  individuals  nor 
nations  can  perform  their  part  well,  until 
they  understand  and  feel  its  importance, 
and  comprehend  and  justly  appreciate 
all  the  duties  belonging  to  it.  It  is  not 
to  inflate  national  vanity,  nor  to  swell  a 
light  and  empty  feeling  of  self-impor 
tance,  but  it  is  that  we  may  judge  justly 
of  our  situation,  and  of  our  own  duties, 
that  I  earnestly  urge  upon  you  this  con 
sideration  of  our  position  and  our  char 
acter  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  but  by  those  who 
would  dispute  against  the  sun,  that  with 
America,  and  in  America,  a  new  era 
commences  in  human  affairs.  This  era 
is  distinguished  by  free  representative 
governments,  by  entire  religious  liberty, 
by  improved  systems  of  national  inter 
course,  by  a  newly  awakened  and  an 
unconquerable  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  and 
by  a  diffusion  of  knowledge  through  the 
community,  such  as  has  been  before  alto 
gether  unknown  and  unheard  of.  Amer 


ica,  America,  our  country,  fellow-citizens, 
our  own  dear  and  native  land,  is  insep 
arably  connected,  fast  bound  up,  in 
fortune  and  by  fate,  with  these  great 
interests.  If  they  fall,  we  fall  with 
them;  if  they  stand,  it  will  be  because 
we  have  maintained  them.  Let  us  con 
template,  then,  this  connection,  which 
binds  the  prosperity  of  others  to  our 
own;  and  let  us  manfully  discharge  all 
the  duties  which  it  imposes.  If  we 
cherish  the  virtues  and  the  principles  of 
our  fathers,  Heaven  will  assist  us  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  human  liberty  and 
human  happiness.  Auspicious  omens 
cheer  us.  Great  examples  are  before  us. 
Our  own  firmament  now  shines  brightly 
upon  our  path.  WASHINGTON  is  in 
the  clear,  upper  sky.  These  other  stars 
have  now  joined  the  American  constel 
lation;  they  circle  round  their  centre, 
and  the  heavens  beam  with  new  light. 
Beneath  this  illumination  let  us  walk 
the  course  of  life,  and  at  its  close  de 
voutly  commend  our  beloved  country,  the 
common  parent  of  us  all,  to  the  Divine 
Benignity. 


NOTE. 


Page  170. 

THE  question  has  often  been  asked, 
whether  the  anonymous  speech  against 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the 
speech  in  support  of  it  ascribed  to  John 
Adams  in  the  preceding  Discourse,  are  a 
portion  of  the  debates  which  actually  took 
place  in  1776  in  the  Continental  Congress. 
Not  only  has  this  inquiry  been  propounded 
in  the  puhlic  papers,  but  several  letters  on 
the  suhject  have  been  addressed  to  Mr. 
Webster  and  his  friends.  For  this  reason, 
it  may  be  proper  to  state,  that  those 
speeches  were  composed  by  Mr.  Webster, 
after  the  manner  of  the  ancient  historians, 
as  embodying  in  an  impressive  form  the 
arguments  relied  upon  by  the  friends  and 
opponents  of  the  measure,  respectively. 
They  of  course  represent  the  speeches  that 
were  actually  made  on  both  sides,  but  no 
report  of  the  debates  of  this  period  has 
been  preserved,  and  the  orator  on  the  pres 
ent  occasion  had  no  aid  in  framing  these 
addresses,  but  what  was  furnished  by 
general  tradition  and  the  known  line  of 


12 


argument  pursued  by  the  speakers  and 
writers  of  that  day  for  and  against  the 
measure  of  Independence.  The  first  sen 
tence  of  the  speech  ascribed  to  Mr.  Adams 
was  of  course  suggested  by  the  parting 
scene  with  Jonathan  Sewall,  as  described 
by  Mr.  Adams  himself,  in  the  Preface  to 
the  Letters  of  Novanglus  and  Massachu- 
settensis. 

So  much  interest  has  been  taken  in  this 
subject,  that  it  has  been  thought  proper,  by 
way  of  settling  the  question  in  the  most 
authentic  manner,  to  give  publicity  to  the 
following  answer,  written  by  Mr.  Webster 
to  one  of  the  letters  of  inquiry  above  al 
luded  to. 

"  Washington,  22  January,  1846. 
"DEAR  SIR:  — 

"  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  letter  of  the  18th  instant.  Its  contents 
hardly  surprise  me,  as  I  have  received  very 
many  similar  communications. 

"  Your  inquiry  is  easily  answered.  The  Con 
gress  of  the  Revolution  sat  with  closed  doors. 
Its  proceedings  were  made  known  to  the  public 
from  time  to  time,  by  printing  its  journal;  but 


178 


ADAMS  AND  JEFFERSON. 


the  debates  were  not  published.  So  far  as  I 
know,  there  is  not  existing,  in  print  or  manu 
script,  the  speech,  or  any  part  or  fragment  of 
the  speech,  delivered  by  Mr.  Adams  on  the  ques 
tion  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  We 
only  know,  from  the  testimony  of  his  auditors, 
that  he  spoke  with  remarkable  ability  and  char 
acteristic  earnestness. 

"  The  day  after  the  Declaration  was  made, 
Mr.  Adams,  in  writing  to  a  friend,1  declared  the 
event  to  be  one  that  '  ought  to  be  commemorat 
ed,  as  tlie  dav  of  deliverance,  by  solemn  acts  of 
devotion  to  6od  Almighty.  It  ought  to  be  sol 
emnized  with  pomp  and  parade,  with  shows, 
games,  sports,  guns,  bells,  bonfires,  and  illumi- 

1  See  Letters  of  John  Adams  to  his  Wife, 
Vol.  I.  p.  128,  note. 


nations,  from  one  end  of  this  continent  to  the 
other,  from  this  time  forward,  for  evermore.' 

"And  on  the  day  of  his  death,  hearing  the 
noise  of  bells  and  cannon,  he  asked  the  occasion. 
On  being  reminded  that  it  was  '  Independent 
day,'  he  replied,  'Independence  for  ever!' 
These  expressions  were  introduced  into  the 
speech  supposed  to  have  been  made  by  him. 
For  the  rest  I  must  be  answerable.  The  speech 
was  written  by  me,  in  my  house  in  Boston,  the 
day  before  the  delivery  of  the  Discourse  in  Fan- 
euil  Hall ;  a  poor  substitute,  I  am  sure  it  would 
appear  to  be,  if  we  could  now  see  the  speech 
actually  made  by  Mr.  Adams  on  that  transcen- 
dently "important  occasion. 

"  I  am,  respectfully, 

-"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"DAMEL  WKBSTER." 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


AN    ARGUMENT    MADE    IN    THE    CASE    OF    OGDEN    AND    SAUNDERS,   IN    THE 
SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES,   JANUARY  TERM,  1827. 


[THIS  was  an  action  of  assumpsit,  brought 
originally  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Louisiana, 
by  Saunders,  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  against 
Ogden,  a  citizen  of  Louisiana.  The  plain 
tiff  below  declared  upon  certain  bills  of 
exchange,  drawn  on  the  30th  of  September, 
1806,  by  one  Jordan,  at  Lexington,  in  the 
State  of  Kentucky,  upon  the  defendant 
below,  Ogden,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
(the  defendant  then  being  a  citizen  and 
resident  of  the  State  of  New  York,)  ac 
cepted  by  him  at  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
protested  for  non-payment. 

The  defendant  below  pleaded  several 
pleas,  among  which  was  a  certificate  of 
discharge  under  the  act  of  the  legislature 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  of  April  3d, 
1801,  for  the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors, 
commonly  called  the  Three-Fourths  Act. 

The  jury  found  the  facts  in  the  form  of 
a  special  verdict,  on  which  the  court  ren 
dered  a  judgment  for  the  plaintiff  below, 
and  the  cause  was  brought  by  writ  of  error 
before  this  court.  The  question  which 
arose  under  this  plea,  as  to  the  validity  of 
the  law  of  New  York  as  being  repugnant 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
was  argued  at  February  term,  1824,  by  Mr. 
Clay,  Mr.  D.  B.  Ogden,  and  Mr.  Haines.for 
the  plaintiff  in  error,  and  by  Mr.  Webster 
and  Mr.  Wheaton,  for  the  defendant  in  error, 
and  the  cause  was  continued  for  advisement 
until  the  present  term.  It  was  again  ar 
gued  at  the  present  term,  by  Mr.  Webster 
and  Mr.  Wheaton,  against  the  validity,  and 
by  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  E.  Living 
ston,  Mr.  D.  B.  Ogden,  Mr.  Jones,  and  Mr. 
Sampson,  for  the  validity. 

Mr.  Wheaton  opened  the  argument  for 
the  defendant  in  error ;  he  was  followed  by 
the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  in  error ;  and 
Mr.  Webster  replied  as  follows.] 

THE  question  arising  in  this  case  is 
not  more  important,  nor  so  important 
even,  in  its  bearing  on  individual  cases 
of  private  right,  as  in  its  character  of  a 


public  political  question.  The  Consti 
tution  was  intended  to  accomplish  a 
great  political  object.  Its  design  was 
not  so  much  to  prevent  injustice  or  in 
jury  in  one  case,  or  in  successive  single 
cases,  as  it  was  to  make  general  salutary 
provisions,  which,  in  their  operation, 
should  give  security  to  all  contracts, 
stability  to  credit,  uniformity  among  all 
the  States  in  those  things  which  mate 
rially  concern  the  foreign  commerce  of 
the  country,  and  their  own  credit,  trade, 
and  intercourse  with  each  other.  The 
real  question,  is,  therefore,  a  much 
broader  one  than  has  been  argued.  It 
is  this:  Whether  the  Constitution  has 
not,  for  general  political  purposes,  or 
dained  that  bankrupt  laws  should  be 
established  only  by  national  authority? 
We  contend  that  such  was  the  intention 
of  the  Constitution;  an  intention,  as  we 
think,  plainly  manifested  in  several  of 
its  provisions. 

The  act  of  New  York,  under  which 
this  question  arises,  provides  that  a 
debtor  may  be  discharged  from  all  his 
debts,  upon  assigning  his  property  to 
trustees  for  the  use  of  his  creditors. 
When  applied  to  the  discharge  of  debts 
contracted  before  the  date  of  the  law, 
this  court  has  decided  that  the  act  is 
invalid.1  The  act  itself  makes  no  dis 
tinction  between  past  and  future  debts, 
but  provides  for  the  discharge  of  both 
in  the  same  manner.  In  the  case,  then, 
of  a  debt  already  existing,  it  is  admitted 

1  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  Rep. 
122. 


180 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


that  the  act  does  impair  the  obligation 
of  contracts.  We  wish  the  full  extent 
of  this  decision  to  be  well  considered. 
It  is  not  merely  that  the  legislature  of 
the  State  cannot  interfere  by  law,  in  the 
particular  case  of  A  or  B,  to  injure  or 
impair  rights  which  have  become  vested 
under  contracts;  but  it  is,  that  they 
have  no  power  by  general  law  to  regu 
late  the  manner  in  which  all  debtors 
may  be  discharged  from  subsisting  con 
tracts  ;  in  other  words,  they  cannot  pass 
general  bankrupt  laws  to  be  applied  in 
presenti.  Now,  it  is  not  contended  that 
such  laws  are  unjust,  and  ought  not  to 
be  passed  by  any  legislature.  It  is  not 
said  that  they  are  unwise  or  impolitic. 
On  the  contrary,  we  know  the  general 
practice  to  be,  that,  when  bankrupt 
laws  are  established,  they  make  no  dis 
tinction  between  present  and  future 
debts.  While  all  agree  that  special 
acts,  made  for  individual  cases,  are  un 
just,  all  admit  that  a  general  law,  made 
for  all  cases,  may  be  both  just  and  poli 
tic.  The  question,  then,  which  meets 
us  on  the  threshold  is  this:  If  the  Con 
stitution  meant  to  leave  the  States  the 
power  of  establishing  systems  of  bank 
ruptcy  to  act  upon  future  debts,  what 
great  or  important  object  of  a  political 
nature  is  answered  by  denying  the  power 
of  making  such  systems  applicable  to 
existing  debts? 

The  argument  used  in  Sturges  v. 
Crowninshield  was,  at  least,  a  plausible 
arid  consistent  argument.  It  maintained 
that  the  prohibition  of  the  Constitution 
was  levelled  only  against  interferences 
in  individual  cases,  and  did  not  apply 
to  general  laws,  whether  those  laws 
were  retrospective  or  prospective  in  their 
operation.  But  the  court  rejected  that 
conclusion.  It  decided  that  the  Consti 
tution  was  intended  to  apply  to  general 
laws  or  systems  of  bankruptcy  ;  that  an 
act  providing  that  all  debtors  might  be 
discharged  from  all  creditors,  upon  cer 
tain  conditions,  was  of  no  more  validity 
than  an  act  providing  that  a  particular 
debtor,  A,  should  be  discharged  on  the 
same  conditions  from  his  particular  cred 
itor,  B. 

It  being  thus   decided  that  general 


laws  are  within  the  prohibition  of  the 
Constitution,  it  is  for  the  plaintiff  in 
error  now  to  show  on  what  ground,  con 
sistent  with  the  general  objects  of  the 
Constitution,  he  can  establish  a  distinc 
tion  which  can  give  effect  to  those  gen 
eral  laws  in  their  application  to  future 
debts,  while  it  denies  them  effect  in 
their  application  to  subsisting  debts. 
The  words  are,  that  "no  State  shall 
pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,"  The  general  operation  of 
all  such  laws  is  to  impair  that  obliga 
tion  ;  that  is,  to  discharge  the  obligation 
without  fulfilling  it.  This  is  admitted; 
and  the  only  ground  taken  for  the  dis 
tinction  to  stand  on  is,  that,  when  the 
law  was  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the 
making  of  the  contract,  the  parties  must 
be  supposed  to  have  reference  to  it,  or,  as 
it  is  usually  expressed,  the  law  is  made 
a  part  of  the  contract.  Before  consid 
ering  what  foundation  there  is  for  this 
argument,  it  may  be  well  to  inquire 
what  is  that  obligation  of  contracts 
of  which  the  Constitution  speaks,  and 
whence  is  it  derived. 

The  definition  given  by  the  court  in 
Sturges  v.  Crowninshield  is  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose.  "A  contract," 
say  the  court,  "is  an  agreement  to  do 
some  particular  thing;  the  law  binds 
the  party  to  perform  this  agreement, 
and  this  is  the  obligation  of  the  con 
tract." 

It  is  indeed  probable  that  the  Consti 
tution  used  the  words  in  a  somewhat 
more  popular  sense.  We  speak,  for  ex 
ample,  familiarly  of  a  usurious  contract, 
and  yet  we  say,  speaking  technically, 
that  a  usurious  agreement  is  no  con 
tract. 

By  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  we 
should  understand  the  Constitution  to 
mean,  the  duty  of  performing  a  legal 
agreement.  If  the  contract  be  lawful, 
the  party  is  bound  to  perform  it.  But 
bound  by  what?  What  is  it  that  binds 
him?  And  this  leads  us  to  what  we  re 
gard  as  a  principal  fallacy  in  the  argu 
ment  on  the  other  side.  That  argument 
supposes,  and  insists,  that  the  whole 
obligation  of  a  contract  has  its  origin  in 
the  municipal  law.  This  position  we 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


181 


controvert.  We  do  not  say  that  it  is 
that  obligation  which  springs  from  con 
science  merely;  but  we  deny  that  it  is 
only  such  as  springs  from  the  particular 
law  of  the  place  where  the  contract  is 
made.  It  must  be  a  lawful  contract, 
doubtless;  that  is,  permitted  and  al 
lowed;  because  society  has  a  right  to 
prohibit  all  such  contracts,  as  well  as  all 
such  actions,  as  it  deems  to  be  mischiev 
ous  or  injurious.  But  if  the  contract 
be  such  as  the  law  of  society  tolerates, 
in  other  words,  if  it  be  lawful,  then  we 
say,  the  duty  of  performing  it  springs 
from  universal  law.  And  this  is  the 
concurrent  sense  of  all  the  writers  of 
authority. 

The  duty  of  performing  promises  is 
thus  shown  to  rest  on  universal  law; 
and  if,  departing  from  this  well-estab 
lished  principle,  we  now  follow  the 
teachers  who  instruct  us  that  the  obli 
gation  of  a  contract  has  its  origin  in  the 
law  of  a  particular  State,  and  is  in  all 
cases  what  that  law  makes  it,  and  no 
more,  and  no  less,  we  shall  probably 
find  ourselves  involved  in  inextricable 
difficulties.  A  man  promises,  for  a  val 
uable  consideration,  to  pay  money  in 
New  York.  Is  the  obligation  of  that 
contract  created  by  the  laws  of  that 
State,  or  does  it  subsist  independent  of 
those  laws?  We  contend  that  the  obli 
gation  of  a  contract,  that  is,  the  duty  of 
performing  it,  is  not  created  by  the  law 
of  the  particular  place  where  it  is  made, 
and  dependent  on  that  law  for  its  exist 
ence;  but  that  it  may  subsist,  and  does 
subsist,  without  that  law,  and  indepen 
dent  of  it.  The  obligation  is  in  the 
contract  itself,  in  the  assent  of  the  par 
ties,  and  in  the  sanction  of  universal 
law.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Grotius, 
Vattel,  Burlamaqui,  Pothier,  and  Ru- 
therforth.  The  contract,  doubtless,  is 
necessarily  to  be  enforced  by  the  munici 
pal  law  of  the  place  where  performance 
is  demanded.  The  municipal  law  acts 
on  the  contract  after  it  is  made,  to  com 
pel  its  execution,  or  give  damages  for 
its  violation.  But  this  is  a  very  differ 
ent  thing  from  the  same  law  being  the 
origin  or  fountain  of  the  contract. 

Let  us  illustrate  this  matter  by  an  ex 


ample.  Two  persons  contract  together 
in  New  York  for  the  delivery,  by  one  to 
the  other,  of  a  domestic  animal,  a  uten 
sil  of  husbandry,  or  a  weapon  of  war. 
This  is  a  lawful  contract,  and,  while  the 
parties  remain  in  New  York,  it  is  to  be 
enforced  by  the  laws  of  that  State.  But 
if  they  remove  with  the  article  to  Penn 
sylvania  or  Maryland,  there  a  new  law 
comes  to  act  upon  the  contract,  and  to 
apply  other  remedies  if  it  be  broken. 
Thus  far  the  remedies  are  furnished  by 
the  laws  of  society.  But  suppose  the 
same  parties  to  go  together  to  a  savage 
wilderness,  or  a  desert  island,  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  laws  of  any  society. 
The  obligation  of  the  contract  still  sub 
sists,  and  is  as  perfect  as  ever,  and  is 
now  to  be  enforced  by  another  law,  that 
is,  the  law  of  nature;  and  the  party  to 
whom  the  promise  was  made  has  a  right 
to  take  by  force  the  animal,  the  utensil, 
or  the  weapon  that  wras  promised  him. 
The  right  is  as  perfect  here  as  it  was  in 
Pennsylvania,  or  even  in  New  York; 
but  this  could  not  be  so  if  the  obligation 
were  created  by  the  law  of  New  York, 
or  were  dependent  on  that  law  for  its 
existence,  because  the  laws  of  that  State 
can  have  no  operation  beyond  its  terri 
tory.  Let  us  reverse  this  example. 
Suppose  a  contract  to  be  made  between 
two  persons  cast  ashore  on  an  uninhab 
ited  territory,  or  in  a  place  over  which 
no  law  of  society  extends.  There  are 
such  places,  and  contracts  have  been 
made  by  individuals  casually  there,  and 
these  contracts  have  been  enforced  in 
courts  of  law  in  civilized  communities. 
Whence  do  such  contracts  derive  their 
obligation,  if  not  from  universal  law  ? 

If  these  considerations  show  us  that 
the  obligation  of  a  lawful  contract  does 
not  derive  its  force  from  the  particular 
law  of  the  place  where  made,  but  may 
exist  where  that  law  does  not  exist,  and 
be  enforced  where  that  law  has  no  va 
lidity,  then  it  follows,  we  contend,  that 
any  statute  which  diminishes  or  lessens 
its  obligation  does  impair  it,  whether 
it  precedes  or  succeeds  the  contract  in 
date.  The  contract  having  an  indepen 
dent  origin,  whenever  the  law  comes  to 
exist  together  with  it,  and  interferes 


182 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


with  it,  it  lessens,  we  say,  and  impairs, 
its  own  original  and  independent  obli 
gation.  In  the  case  before  the  court, 
the  contract  did  not  owe  its  existence  to 
the  particular  law  of  New  York;  it  did 
not  depend  on  that  law,  but  could  be 
enforced  without  the  territory  of  that 
State,  as  well  as  within  it.  Neverthe 
less,  though  legal,  though  thus  indepen 
dently  existing,  though  thus  binding 
the  party  everywhere,  and  capable  of 
being  enforced  everywhere,  yet  the  stat 
ute  of  New  York  says  that  it  shall  be 
discharged  without  payment.  This,  we 
say,  impairs  the  obligation  of  that  con 
tract.  It  is  admitted  to  have  been  legal 
in  its  inception,  legal  in  its  full  extent, 
and  capable  of  being  enforced  by  other 
tribunals  according  to  its  terms.  An 
act,  then,  purporting  to  discharge  it 
without  payment,  is,  as  we  contend,  an 
act  impairing  its  obligation. 

Here,  however,  we  meet  the  opposite 
argument,  stated  on  different  occasions 
in  different  terms,  but  usually  summed 
up  in  this,  that  the  law  itself  is  a  part 
of  the  contract,  and  therefore  cannot  im 
pair  it.  What  does  this  mean?  Let  us 
seek  for  clear  ideas.  It  does  not  mean 
that  the  law  gives  any  particular  con 
struction  to  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
or  that  it  makes  the  promise,  or  the  con 
sideration,  or  the  time  of  performance, 
other  than  is  expressed  in  the  instru 
ment  itself.  It  can  only  mean,  that  it 
is  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  contract, 
or  understanding  of  the  parties,  that  the 
contract  itself  shall  be  enforced  by  such 
laws  and  regulations,  respecting  remedy 
and  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts,  as 
are  in  being  in  the  State  where  it  is 
made  at  the  time  of  entering  into  it. 
This  is  meant,  or  nothing  very  clearly 
intelligible  is  meant,  by  saying  the  law 
is  part  of  the  contract. 

There  is  no  authority  in  adjudged 
cases  for  the  plaintiff  in  error  but  the 
State  decisions  which  have  been  cited, 
and,  as  has  already  been  stated,  they  all 
rest  on  this  reason,  that  the  law  is  part 
of  the  contract. 

Against  this  we  contend,  — 

1st.  That,  if  the  proposition  were  true, 
the  consequence  would  not  follow. 


2d.  That  the  proposition  itself  cannot 
be  maintained. 

1.  If  it  were  true  that  the  law  is  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  contract,  the 
consequence   contended   for  would  not 
follow;  because,  if  this  statute  be  part 
of  the  contract,  so  is  every  other  legal 
or  constitutional  provision  existing  at 
the  time  which  affects  the  contract,  or 
which   is   capable   of  affecting  it;   and 
especially  this  very  article  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  .the  United  States  is  part  of 
the  contract.     The  plaintiff  in  error  ar 
gues  in  a  complete  circle.     He  supposes 
the  parties  to  have  had  reference  to  it 
because  it  was  a  binding  law,  and  yet  he 
proves  it  to  be  a  binding  law  only  upon 
the  ground  that  such  reference  was  made 
to  it.     We  come  before  the  court  alleg 
ing  the  law  to  be  void,  as  unconstitu 
tional  ;  they  stop  the  inquiry  by  opposing 
to  us  the  law  itself.     Is  this  logical? 
Is   it   not  precisely  objectio  ejus,  cujus 
dissolutio  petitur  ?    If  one  bring  a  bill  to 
set  aside  a  judgment,  is  that  judgment 
itself  a  good  plea  in   bar  to  the  bill? 
We  propose  to  inquire  if  this  law  is  of 
force  to  control  our  contract,  or  whether, 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
such  force  be  not  denied  to  it.    The  plain 
tiff  in  error  stops  us  by  saying  that  it 
does  control  the  contract,  and  so  arrives 
shortly  at  the  end  of  the  debate.     Is  it 
not  obvious,  that,  supposing  the  act  of 
New  York  to  be  a  part  of  the  contract, 
the  question  still  remains  as  undecided 
as  ever.    What  is  that  act?    Is  it  a  law, 
or  is  it  a  nullity?  a  thing  of  force,  or  a 
thing  of  no  force?     Suppose  the  parties 
to  have  contemplated  this  act,  what  did 
they  contemplate?  its  words  only,  or  its 
legal  effect?  its  words,  or  the  force  which 
the   Constitution  of  the  United   States 
allows   to   it?     If   the  parties   contem 
plated  any  law,  they  contemplated  all 
the  law  that  bore  on  their  contract,  the 
aggregate  of  all  the  statute  and  constitu 
tional  provisions.    To  suppose  that  they 
had  in  view  one  statute  without  regard 
ing  others,  or  that  they  contemplated  a 
statute  without  considering   that  para 
mount  constitutional  provisions  might 
control  or  qualify  that  statute,  or  abro 
gate  it  altogether,  is  unreasonable  and 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


183 


inadmissible.  "  This  contract,"  says 
one  of  the  authorities  relied  on,  "  is  to 
be  construed  as  if  the  law  were  specially 
recited  in  it."  Let  it  be  so  for  the  sake 
of  argument.  But  it  is  also  to  be  con 
strued  as  if  the  prohibitory  clause  of  the 
Constitution  were  recited  in  it,  and  this 
brings  us  back  again  to  the  precise  point 
from  which  we  departed. 

The  Constitution  always  accompanies 
the  law,  and  the  latter  can  have  no  force 
which  the  former  does  not  allow  to  it. 
If  the  reasoning  were  thrown  into  the 
form  of  special  pleading,  it  would  stand 
thus :  the  plaintiff  declares  on  his  debt ; 
the  defendant  pleads  his  discharge  under 
the  law ;  the  plaintiff  alleges  the  law  un 
constitutional ;  but  the  defendant  says, 
You  knew  of  its  existence ;  to  which  the 
answer  is  obvious  and  irresistible,  I 
knew  its  existence  on  the  statute-book 
of  New  York,  but  I  knew,  at  the  same 
time,  it  was  null  and  void  under  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  language  of  another  leading  de 
cision  is,  "A  law  in  force  at  the  time  of 
making  the  contract  does  not  violate 
that  contract ' ' ;  but  the  very  question 
is,  whether  there  be  any  such  law  "  in 
force ' ' ;  for  if  the  States  have  no  au 
thority  to  pass  such  laws,  then  no  such 
law  can  be  in  force.  The  Constitution 
is  a  part  of*  the  contract  as  much  as 
the  law,  and  was  as  much  in  the  con 
templation  of  the  parties.  So  that  the 
proposition,  if  it  be  admitted  that  the 
law  is  part  of  the  contract,  leaves  us 
just  where  it  found  us ;  that  is  to  say, 
under  the  necessity  of  comparing  the  law 
with  the  Constitution,  and  of  deciding 
by  such  comparison  whether  it  be  valid 
or  invalid.  If  the  law  be  unconstitu 
tional,  it  is  void,  and  no  party  can  be 
supposed  to  have  had  reference  to  a 
void  law.  If  it  be  constitutional,  no 
reference  to  it  need  be  supposed. 

2.  But  the  proposition  itself  cannot  be 
maintained.  The  law  is  no  part  of  the 
contract.  What  part  is  it?  the  prom 
ise?  the  consideration?  the  condition? 
Clearly,  it  is  neither  of  these.  It  is  no 
term  of  the  contract.  It  acts  upon  the 
contract  only  when  it  is  broken,  or  to 
discharge  the  party  from  its  obligation 


after  it  is  broken.  The  municipal  law 
is  the  force  of  society  employed  to  com 
pel  the  performance  of  contracts.  In 
every  judgment  in  a  suit  on  contract, 
the  damages  are  given,  and  the  impris 
onment  of  the  person  or  sale  of  goods 
awarded,  not  in  performance  of  the  con 
tract,  or  as  part  of  the  contract,  but  as 
an  indemnity  for  the  breach  of  the  con 
tract.  Even  interest,  which  is  a  strong 
case,  where  it  is  not  expressed  in  the 
contract  itself,  can  only  be  given  as 
damages.  It  is  all  but  absurd  to  say 
that  a  man's  goods  are  sold  on  a  fieri 
facias,  or  that  he  himself  goes  to  jail, 
in  pursuance  of  his  contract.  These  are 
the  penalties  which  the  law  inflicts  for 
the  breach  of  his  contract.  Doubtless, 
parties,  when  they  enter  into  contracts, 
may  well  consider  both  what  their  rights 
and  what  their  liabilities  will  be  by 
the  law,  if  such  contracts  be  broken; 
but  this  contemplation  of  consequences 
which  can  ensue  only  when  the  contract 
is  broken,  is  no  part  of  the  contract  it 
self.  The  law  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  contract  till  it  be  broken;  how,  then, 
can  it  be  said  to  form  a  part  of  the  con 
tract  itself? 

But  there  are  other  cogent  and  more 
specific  reasons  against  considering  the 
law  as  part  of  the  contract.  (1.)  If  the 
law  be  part  of  the  contract,  it  cannot  be 
repealed  or  altered;  because,  in  such 
case,  the  repealing  or  modifying  law  it 
self  would  impair  the  obligation  of  the 
contract.  The  insolvent  law  of  New 
York,  for  example,  authorizes  the  dis 
charge  of  a  debtor  on  the  consent  of  two 
thirds  of  his  creditors.  A  subsequent 
act  requires  the  consent  of  three  fourths ; 
but  if  the  existing  law  be  part  of  the 
contract,  this  latter  law  would  be  void. 
In  short,  nothing  which  is  part  of  the 
contract  can  be  varied  but  by  consent  of 
the  parties ;  therefore  the  argument  rims 
in  absurdum ;  for  it  proves  that  no  lawrs 
for  enforcing  the  contract,  or  giving 
remedies  upon  it,  or  any  way  affecting 
it,  can  be  changed  or  modified  between 
its  creation  and  its  end.  If  the  law  in 
question  binds  one  party  on  the  ground 
of  assent  to  it,  it  binds  both,  and  binds 
them  until  they  agree  to  terminate  its 


184 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


operation.  (2.)  If  the  party  be  bound 
by  an  implied  assent  to  the  law,  as  there 
by  making  the  law  a  part  of  the  contract, 
how  would  it  be  if  the  parties  had  ex 
pressly  dissented,  and  agreed  that  the 
law  should  make  no  part  of  the  contract? 
Suppose  the  promise  to  have  been,  that 
the  promisor  would  pay  at  all  events,  and 
not  take  advantage  of  the  statute;  still, 
would  not  the  statute  operate  on  the 
whole,  —  on  this  particular  agreement 
and  all?  arid  does  not  this  show  that  the 
law  is  no  part  of  the  contract,  but  some 
thing  above  it?  (3.)  If  the  law  of  the 
place  be  part  of  the  contract,  one  of  its 
terms  and  conditions,  how  could  it  be 
enforced,  as  we  all  know  it  might  be,  in 
another  jurisdiction,  which  should  have 
no  regard  to  the  law  of  the  place?  Sup 
pose  the  parties,  after  the  contract,  to 
remove  to  another  State,  do  they  carry 
the  law  with  them  as  part  of  their  con 
tract?  We  all  know  they  do  not.  Or 
take  a  common  case.  Some  States  have 
laws  abolishing  imprisonment  for  debt ; 
these  laws,  according  to  the  argument, 
are  all  parts  of  the  contract;  how,  then, 
can  the  party,  when  sued  in  another 
State,  be  imprisoned  contrary  to  the 
terms  of  his  contract?  (4.)  The  argu 
ment  proves  too  much,  inasmuch  as  it 
applies  as  strongly  to  prior  as  to  subse 
quent  contracts.  It  is  founded  on  a 
supposed  assent  to  the  exercise  of  legis 
lative  authority,  without  considering 
whether  that  exercise  be  legal  or  illegal. 
But  it  is  equally  fair  to  found  the  argu 
ment  on  an  implied  assent  to  the  poten 
tial  exercise  of  that  authority.  The 
implied  reference  to  the  control  of  legis 
lative  power  is  as  reasonable  and  as 
strong  when  that  power  is  dormant,  as 
while  it  is  in  exercise.  In  one  case, 
the  argument  is,  "The  law  existed, 
you  knew  it,  and  acquiesced."  In  the 
other  it  is,  "  The  power  to  pass  the  law 
existed,  you  knew  it,  and  took  your 
chance."  There  is  as  clear  an  assent  in 
one  instance  as  in  the  other.  Indeed,  it 
is  more  reasonable  and  more  sensible  to 
imply  a  general  assent  to  all  the  laws  of 
society,  present  and  to  come,  from  the 
fact  of  living  in  it,  than  it  is  to  imply  a 
particular  assent  to  a  particular  existing 


enactment.  The  true  view  of  the  matter 
is,  that  every  man  is  presumed  to  sub 
mit  to  all  power  which  may  be  lawfully 
exercised  over  him  or  his  right,  and  no 
one  shooid  be  presumed  to  submit  to 
illegal  acts  of  power,  whether  actual  or 
contingent.  (5.)  But  a  main  objection 
to  this  argument  is,  that  it  would  render 
the  whole  constitutional  provision  idle 
and  inoperative;  and  no  explanatory 
words,  if  such  words  had  been  added  in 
the  Constitution,  could  have  prevented 
this  consequence.  The  law,  it  is  said, 
is  part  of  the  contract;  it  cannot,  there 
fore,  impair  the  contract,  because  a  con 
tract  cannot  impair  itself.  Now,  if  this 
argument  be  sound,  the  case  would  have 
been  the  same,  whatever  words  the  Con 
stitution  had  used.  If,  for  example,  it 
had  declared  that  no  State  should  pass 
any  law  impairing  contracts  prospec- 
twely  or  retrospectively;  or  any  law  im 
pairing  contracts,  whether  existing  or 
future ;  or,  whatever  terms  it  had  used 
to  prohibit  precisely  such  a  law  as  is  now 
before  the  court,  —  the  prohibition  would 
be  totally  nugatory  if  the  law  is  to  be 
taken  as  part  of  the  contract;  and  the 
result  would  be,  that,  whatever  may  be 
the  laws  which  the  States  by  this  clause 
of  the  Constitution  are  prohibited  from 
passing,  yet,  if  they  in  fact  do  pass  such 
laws,  those  laws  are  valid,  and  bind  par 
ties  by  a  supposed  assent. 

But  further,  this  idea,  if  well  founded, 
would  enable  the  States  to  defeat  the 
whole  constitutional  provision  by  a  gen 
eral  enactment.  Suppose  a  State  should 
declare,  by  law,  that  all  contracts  en 
tered  into  therein  should  be  subject  to 
such  laws  as  the  legislature,  at  any 
time,  or  from  time  to  time,  might  see 
fit  to  pass.  This  law,  according  to  the 
argument,  would  enter  into  the  contract, 
become  a  part  of  it,  and  authorize  the 
interference  of  the  legislative  power 
with  it,  for  any  and  all  purposes,  wholly 
uncontrolled  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

So  much  for  the  argument  that  the 
law  is  a  part  of  the  contract.  We  think 
it  is  shown  to  be  not  so;  and  if  it  were, 
the  expected  consequence  would  not  fol 
low. 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUXDERS. 


185 


The  inquiry,  then,  recurs,  whether  the 
law  in  question  be  such  a  law  as  the 
legislature  of  New  York  had  authority 
to  pass.  The  question  is  general.  We 
differ  from  our  learned  adversaries  on 
general  principles.  We  differ  as  to  the 
main  scope  and  end  of  this  constitutional 
provision.  They  think  it  entirely  reme 
dial;  we  regard  it  as  preventive.  They 
think  it  adopted  to  secure  redress  for 
violated  private  rights;  to  us,  it  seems 
intended  to  guard  against  great  public 
mischiefs.  They  argue  it  as  if  it  were 
designed  as  an  indemnity  or  protection 
for  injured  private  rights,  in  individual 
cases  of  meum  and  tuum ;  we  look  upon 
it  as  a  great  political  provision,  favora 
ble  to  the  commerce  and  credit  of  the 
whole  country.  Certainly  we  do  not 
deny  its  application  to  cases  of  violated 
private  right.  Such  cases  are  clearly  and 
unquestionably  within  its  operation. 
Still,  we  think  its  main  scope  to  be  gen 
eral  and  political.  And  this,  we  think, 
is  proved  by  reference  to  the  history  of 
the  country,  and  to  the  great  objects 
which  were  sought  to  be  attained  by  tho 
establishment  of  the  present  govern 
ment.  Commerce,  credit,  and  confi 
dence  were  the  principal  things  which 
did  not  exist  under  the  old  Confedera 
tion,  and  wrhich  it  was  a  main  object  of 
the  present  Constitution  to  create  and 
establish.  A  vicious  system  of  legisla 
tion,  a  system  of  paper  money  and  ten 
der  laws,  had  completely  paralyzed  in 
dustry,  threatened  to  beggar  every  man 
of  property,  and  ultimately  to  ruin  the 
country.  The  relation  between  debtor 
and  creditor,  always  delicate,  and  al- 
wrays  dangerous  whenever  it  divides  so 
ciety,  and  draws  out  the  respective  par 
ties  into  different  ranks  and  classes,  was 
in  such  a  condition  in  the  years  1787, 
1788,  and  1789,  as  to  threaten  the  over 
throw  of  all  government ;  and  a  revolu 
tion  was  menaced,  much  more  critical 
and  alarming  than  that  through  which 
the  country  had  recently  passed.  The 
object  of  the  new  Constitution  was  to 
arrest  these  evils;  to  awaken  industry 
by  giving  security  to  property ;  to  estab 
lish  confidence,  credit,  and  commerce, 
by  salutary  laws,  to  be  enforced  by  the 


power  of  the  whole  community.  The 
Revolutionary  War  was  over,  the  coun 
try  had  peace,  but  little  domestic  tran 
quillity;  it  had  liberty,  but  few  of  its 
enjoyments,  and  none  of  its  security. 
The  States  had  struggled  together,  but 
their  union  was  imperfect.  They  had 
freedom,  but  not  an  established  course 
of  justice.  The  Constitution  was  there 
fore  framed,  as  it  professes,  "  to  form  a 
more  perfect  union,  to  establish  justice, 
to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  arid  to 
insure  domestic  tranquillity." 

It  is  not  pertinent  to  this  occasion  to 
advert  to  all  the  means  by  which  these 
desirable  ends  were  to  be  obtained. 
Some  of  them,  closely  connected  with 
the  subject  now  under  consideration, 
are  obvious  and  prominent.  The  ob 
jects  were  commerce,  credit,  and  mutual 
confidence  in  matters  of  property;  and 
these  required,  among  other  things,  a 
uniform  standard  of  value  or  medium 
of  payments.  One  of  the  first  powers 
given  to  Congress,  therefore,  is  that  of 
coining  money  and  fixing  the  value  of 
foreign  coins;  and  one  of  the  first  re 
straints  imposed  on  the  States  is  the 
total  prohibition  to  coin  money.  These 
two  provisions  are  industriously  followed 
up  and  completed  by  denying  to  the 
States  all  power  to  emit  bills  of  credit, 
or  to  make  any  thing  but  gold  and  sil 
ver  a  tender  in  the  payment  of  debts. 
The  whole  control,  therefore,  over  the 
standard  of  value  and  medium  of  pay 
ments  is  vested  in  the  general  govern 
ment.  And  here  the  question  in 
stantly  suggests  itself,  Why  should  such 
pains  be  taken  to  confide  to  Congress 
alone  this  exclusive  power  of  fixing  on 
a  standard  of  value,  and  of  prescribing 
the  medium  in  which  debts  shall  be 
paid,  if  it  is,  after  all,  to  be  left  to 
every  State  to  declare  that  debts  may 
be  discharged,  and  to  prescribe  how 
they  may  be  discharged,  without  any 
payment  at  all?  Why  say  that  no  man 
shall  be  obliged  to  take,  in  discharge  of 
a  debt,  paper  money  issued  by  the  au 
thority  of  a  State,  and  yet  say  that  by 
the  same  authority  the  debt  may  be 
discharged  without  any  payment  what* 
ever? 


186 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


We  contend,  that  the  Constitution  has 
not  left  its  work  thus  unfinished.  We 
contend,  that,  taking  its  provisions  to 
gether,  it  is  apparent  it  was  intended  to 
provide  for  two  things,  intimately  con 
nected  with  each  other.  These  are,  — 

1.  A   medium   for  the    payment    of 
debts;  and, 

2.  A  uniform  manner  of  discharging 
debts,  when  they  are  to  be  discharged 
without  payment. 

The  arrangement  of  the  grants  and 
prohibitions  contained  in  the  Constitu 
tion  is  fit  to  be  regarded  on  this  occa 
sion.  The  grant  to  Congress  and  the 
prohibition  on  the  States,  though  they 
are  certainly  to  be  construed  together, 
are  not  contained  in  the  same  clauses. 
The  powers  granted  to  Congress  are 
enumerated  one  after  another  in  the 
eighth  section ;  the  principal  limitations 
on  those  powers,  in  the  ninth  section ; 
and  the  prohibitions  to  the  States,  in 
the  tenth  section.  Now,  in  order  to  un 
derstand  whether  any  particular  power 
be  exclusively  vested  in  Congress,  it  is 
necessary  to  read  the  terms  of  the  grant, 
together  with  the  terms  of  the  prohibi 
tion.  Take  an  example  from  that  power 
of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  the 
coinage  power.  Here  the  grant  to  Con 
gress  is,  "To  coin  money,  regulate  the 
value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coins." 
Now,  the  correlative  prohibition  on  the 
States,  though  found  in  another  section,  is 
undoubtedly  to  be  taken  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  foregoing,  as  much  as 
if  it  had  been  found  in  the  same  clause. 
The  only  just  reading  of  these  provis 
ions,  therefore,  is  this:  "  Congress  shall 
have  power  to  coin  money,  regulate  the 
value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coin;  but 
no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit  bills  of 
credit,  or  make  any  thing  but  gold  and 
silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of 
debts." 

These  provisions  respect  the  medium 
of  payment,  or  standard  of  value,  and, 
thus  collated,  their  joint  result  is  clear 
and  decisive.  We  think  the  result  clear, 
also,  of  those  provisions  which  respect 
the  discharge  of  debts  without  payment. 
Collated  in  like  manner,  they  stand  thus : 
"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  establish 


uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of  bank 
ruptcies  throughout  the  United  States ; 
but  no  State  shall  pass  any  law  impair 
ing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  This 
collocation  cannot  be  objected  to,  if 
they  refer  to  the  same  subject-matter ; 
and  that  they  do  refer  to  the  same  sub 
ject-matter  we  have  the  authority  of 
this  court  for  saying,  because  this 
court  solemnly  determined,  in  Sturges 
v.  Crowninshield,  that  this  prohibition 
on  the  States  did  apply  to  systems  of 
bankruptcy.  It  must  be  now  taken, 
therefore,  that  State  bankrupt  laws  were 
in  the  mind  of  the  Convention  when  the 
prohibition  was  adopted,  and  therefore 
the  grant  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of 
bankrupt  laws,  and  the  prohibition  to 
the  States  on  the  same  subject,  are 
properly  to  be  taken  and  read  together ; 
and  being  thus  read  together,  is  not  the 
intention  clear  to  take  a\vay  from  the 
States  the  power  of  passing  bankrupt 
laws,  since,  while  enacted  by  them,  such 
laws  would  not  be  uniform,  and  to  con 
fer  the  power  exclusively  on  Congress, 
by  whom  uniform  laws  could  be  estab 
lished? 

Suppose  the  order  of  arrangement  in 
the  Constitution  had  been  otherwise  than 
it  is,  and  that  the  prohibitions  to  the 
States  had  preceded  the  grants  of  power 
to  Congress,  the  two  powers,  when  col 
lated,  would  then  have  read  thus:  "No 
State  shall  pass  any  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts;  but  Congress 
may  establish  uniform  laws  on  the  sub 
ject  of  bankruptcies."  Could  any  man 
have  doubted,  in  that  case,  that  the 
meaning  was,  that  the  States  should  not 
pass  laws  discharging  debts  without  pay 
ment,  but  that  Congress  might  establish 
uniform  bankrupt  acts'?  And  yet  this 
inversion  of  the  order  of  the  clauses  dees 
not  alter  their  sense.  We  contend,  that 
Congress  alone  possesses  the  power  of 
establishing  bankrupt  laws;  and  al 
though  we  are  aware  that,  in  Sturges  v. 
Crowninshield,  the  court  decided  that 
such  an  exclusive  power  could  not  be 
inferred  from  the  words  of  the  grant  in 
the  seventh  section,  we  yet  would  re 
spectfully  request  the  bench  to  recon 
sider  this  point.  We  think  it  could  not 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUNDERS. 


187 


have  been  intended  that  both  the  States 
and  general  government  should  exercise 
this  power;  and  therefore,  that  a  grant 
to  one  implies  a  prohibition  on  the  other. 
But  not  to  press  a  topic  which  the  court 
has  already  had  under  its  consideration, 
we  contend,  that,  even  without  reading 
the  clauses  of  the  Constitution  in  the 
connection  which  we  have  suggested, 
and  which  is  believed  to  be  the  true  one, 
the  prohibition  in  the  tenth  section, 
taken  by  itself,  does  forbid  the  enact 
ment  of  State  bankrupt  laws,  as  applied 
to  future  as  well  as  present  debts.  We 
argue  this  from  the  words  of  the  prohi 
bition,  from  the  association  they  are 
found  in,  and  from  the  objects  intended. 

1.  The  words  are  general.    The  States 
can   pass   no  law  impairing   contracts; 
that  is,  any  contract.     In  the  nature  of 
things  a  law  may  impair  a  future  con 
tract,    and    therefore    such    contract   is 
within  the  protection  of  the  Constitu 
tion.     The  words  being  general,  it  is  for 
the  other  side  to  show  a  limitation ;  and 
this,  it  is  submitted,  they  have  wholly 
failed  to  do,  unless  they  shall  have  es 
tablished  the  doctrine  that  the  law  itself 
is  part  of  the  contract.    It  may  be  added, 
that  the  particular  expression  of  the  Con 
stitution  is  worth  regarding.     The  thing 
prohibited  is  called  a  law,  not  an  act. 
A  law,  in  its  general  acceptation,  is  a 
rule  prescribed  for  future  conduct,  not 
a  legislative  interference  with  existing 
rights.     The  framers  of   the  Constitu 
tion  would  hardly  have  given  the  appel 
lation   of    laic  to   violent    invasions   of 
individual  right,  or  individual  property, 
by  acts  of  legislative  power.     Although, 
doubtless,  such  acts  fall  within  this  pro 
hibition,  yet  they  are  prohibited  also  by 
general  principles,  and  by  the  constitu 
tions  of  the  States,  and  therefore  further 
provision  against  such  acts  \vas  not  so 
necessary  as  against  other  mischiefs. 

2.  The  most  conclusive  argument,  per 
haps,  arises  from  the  connection  in  which 
the  clause  stands.     The  words  of-  the 
prohibition,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  civil 
rights,  or  rights  of  property,  are,  that 
"no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit  bills 
of  credit,  make  any  thing  but  gold  and 
silver  coin  a  tender  in   the  payment  of 


debts,  or  pass  any  law  impairing  the  ob 
ligation  of  contracts."  The  prohibition 
of  attainders,  and  ex  post  facto  laws,  re 
fers  entirely  to  criminal  proceedings,  and 
therefore  should  be  considered  as  stand 
ing  by  itself;  but  the  other  parts  of  the 
prohibition  are  connected  by  the  sub 
ject-matter,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be 
construed  together.  Taking  the  words 
thus  together,  according  to  their  natural 
connection,  how  is  it  possible  to  give  a 
more  limited  construction  to  the  term 
"contracts,"  in  the  last  branch  of  the 
sentence,  than  to  the  word  "  debts,"  in 
that  immediately  preceding?  Can  a 
State  make  any  thing  but  gold  and  sil 
ver  a  tender  in  payment  of  future  debts? 
This  nobody  pretends.  But  what  ground 
is  there  for  a  distinction?  No  State  shall 
make  any  thing  but  gold  and  silver  a 
tender  in  the  payment  of  debts,  nor  pass 
any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  con 
tracts.  Now,  by  what  reasoning  is  it 
made  out  that  the  debts  here  spoken  of 
are  any  debts,  either  existing  or  future, 
but  that  the  contracts  spoken  of  are  sub 
sisting  contracts  only?  Such  a  distinc 
tion  seems  to  us  wholly  arbitrary.  We 
see  no  ground  for  it.  Suppose  the  arti 
cle,  where  it  uses  the  word  debts,  had 
used  the  word  contracts.  The  sense 
would  have  been  the  same  then  that  it 
now  is;  but  the  identity  of  terms  would 
have  made  the  nature  of  the  distinction 
now  contended  for  somewhat  more  obvi 
ous.  Thus  altered,  the  clause  would 
read,  that  no  State  should  make  any 
thing  but  gold  and  silver  a  tender  in  dis 
charge  of  contracts,  nor  pass  any  law  im 
pairing  the  obligation  of  contracts;  yet 
the  first  of  these  expressions  would  have 
been  held  to  apply  to  all  contracts,  and  the 
last  to  subsisting  contracts  only.  This 
shows  the  consequence  of  what  is  now 
contended  for  in  a  strong  light.  It  is 
certain  that  the  substitution  of  the  word 
contracts  for  debts  would  not  alter  the 
sense;  and  an  argument  that  could  not 
be  sustained,  if  such  substitution  were 
made,  cannot  be  sustained  now.  We 
maintain,  therefore,  that,  if  tender  laws 
may  not  be  made  for  future  debts,  neither 
can  bankrupt  laws  be  made  for  future 
contracts.  All  the  arguments  used  here 


188 


THE  CASE  OF  OGDEN  AND  SAUXDERS. 


may  be  applied  with  equal  force  to  ten 
der  laws  for  future  debts.  It  may  be 
said,  for  instance,  that,  when  it  speaks 
of  debts,  the  Constitution  means  existing 
debts,  and  not  mere  possibilities  of  fu 
ture  debt;  that  the  object  was  to  pre 
serve  vested  rights;  and  that  if  a  man, 
after  a  tender  law  had  passed,  had  con 
tracted  a  debt,  the  manner  in  which  that 
tender  law  authorized  that  debt  to  be 
discharged  became  part  of  the  contract, 
and  that  the  whole  debt,  or  whole  obli 
gation,  was  thus  qualified  by  the  pre 
existing  law,  and  was  no  more  than  a 
contract  to  deliver  so  much  paper  money, 
or  whatever  other  article  might  be  made 
a  tender,  as  the  original  bargain  ex 
pressed.  Arguments  of  this  sort  will 
not  be  found  wanting  in  favor  of  tender 
laws,  if  the  court  yield  to  similar  argu 
ments  in  favor  of  bankrupt  laws. 

These  several  prohibitions  of  the  Con 
stitution  stand  in  the  same  paragraph; 
they  have  the  same  purpose,  and  were 
introduced  for  the  same  object ;  they  are 
expressed  in  words  of  similar  import,  in 
grammar,  and  in  sense ;  they  are  subject 
to  the  same  construction,  and  we  think 
no  reason  has  yet  been  given  for  impos 
ing  an  important  restriction  on  one  part 
of  them,  which  does  not  equally  show 
that  the  same  restriction  might  be  im 
posed  also  on  the  other  part. 

We  have  already  endeavored  to  main 
tain,  that  one  great  political  object  in 
tended  by  the  Constitution  would  be 
defeated,  if  this  construction  were  al 
lowed  to  prevail.  As  an  object  of  polit 
ical  regulation,  it  was  not  important  to 
prevent  the  States  from  passing  bank 
rupt  laws  applicable  to  present  debts, 
while  the  power  was  left  to  them  in  re 
gard  to  future  debts ;  nor  was  it  at  all 
important,  in  a  political  point  of  view, 
to  prohibit  tender  laws  as  to  future 
debts,  while  it  was  yet  left  to  the  States 
to  pass  laws  for  the  discharge  of  such 
debts,  which,  after  all,  are  little  differ 
ent  in  principle  from  tender  laws.  Look 
at  the  law  before  the  court  in  this  view. 


It  provides,  that,  if  the  debtor  will  sur 
render,  offer,  or  tender  to  trustees,  for 
the  benefit  of  his  creditors,  all  his  estate 
and  effects,  he  shall  be  discharged  from 
all  his  debte.  If  it  had  authorized  a  ten 
der  of  any  thing  but  money  to  any  one 
creditor,  though  it  were  of  a  value  equal 
to  the  debt,  and  thereupon  provided  for  a 
discharge,  it  would  have  been  clearly  in 
valid.  Yet  it  is  maintained  to  be  good, 
merely  because  it  is  made  for  all  cred 
itors,  and  seeks  a  discharge  from  all 
debts;  although  the  thing  tendered  may 
not  be  equivalent  to  a  shilling  in  the 
pound  of  those  debts.  This  shows, 
again,  very  clearly,  how  the  Constitu 
tion  has  failed  of  its  purpose,  if,  having 
in  terms  prohibited  all  tender  laws,  and 
taken  so  much  pains  to  establish  a  uni 
form  medium  of  payment,  it  has  yet  left 
the  States  the  power  of  discharging 
debts,  as  they  may  see  fit,  without  any 
payment  at  all. 

To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said, 
we  maintain,  first,  that  the  Constitu 
tion,  by  its  grants  to  Congress  and  its 
prohibitions  on  the  States,  has  sought 
to  establish  one  uniform  standard  of 
value,  or  medium  of  payment.  Second, 
that,  by  like  means,  it  has  endeavored 
to  provide  for  one  uniform  mode  of  dis 
charging  debts,  when  they  are  to  be  dis 
charged  without  payment.  Third,  that 
these  objects  are  connected,  and  that  the 
first  loses  much  of  its  importance,  if  the 
last,  also,  be  not  accomplished.  Fourth, 
that,  reading  the  grant  to  Congress  and 
the  prohibition  on  the  States  together, 
the  inference  is  strong  that  the  Consti 
tution  intended  to  confer  an  exclusive 
power  to  pass  bankrupt  laws  on  Con 
gress.  Fifth,  that  the  prohibition  in  the 
tenth  section  reaches  to  all  contracts, 
existing  or  future,  in  the  same  way  that 
the  other  prohibition  in  the  same  sec 
tion  extends  to  all  debts  existing  or 
future.  Sixthly,  that,  upon  any  other 
construction,  one  great  political  object 
of  the  Constitution  will  fail  of  its  accom 
plishment. 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


AN  ARGUMENT  ON  THE  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  FRANCIS  KNAPP,  FOR  THE  MUR 
DER  OF  JOSEPH  WHITE,  OF  SALEM,  IN  ESSEX  COUNTY,  MASSACHUSETTS, 
ON  THE  NIGHT  OF  THE  GTH  OF  APRIL,  1830. 


[THE  following  argument  was  addressed 
to  the  jury  at  a  trial  for  a  remarkable  mur 
der.  A  more  extraordinary  case  never  oc 
curred  in  this  country,  nor  is  it  equalled  in 
strange  interest  by  any  trial  in  the  French 
Causes  Celebres  or  the  English  State  Trials. 
Deep  sensation  and  intense  curiosity  were 
excited  through  the  whole  country,  at  the 
time  of  the  occurrence  of  the  event,  not 
only  by  the  atrocity  of  the  crime,  but  by 
the  position  of  the  victim,  and  the  romantic 
incidents  in  the  detection  and  fate  of  the 
assassin  and  his  accomplices. 

The  following  outline  of  the  facts  will 
assist  the  reader  to  understand  the  bearings 
of  the  argument. 

Joseph  White,  Esq.  was  found  murdered 
in  his  bed,  in  his  mansion-house,  on  the 
morning  of  the  7th  of  April,  1830.  He  was 
a  wealthy  merchant  of  Salem,  eighty-two 
years  of  age,  and  had  for  many  years  given 
up  active  business.  His  servant-man  rose 
that  morning  at  six  o'clock,  and  on  going 
down  into  the  kitchen,  and  opening  the 
shutters  of  the  window,  saw  that  the  back 
window  of  the  east  parlor  was  open,  and 
that  a  plank  was  raised  to  the  window  from 
the  back  yard ;  he  then  went  into  the  par 
lor,  but  saw  no  trace  of  any  person  having 
been  there.  He  went  to  the  apartment  of 
the  maid-servant,  and  told  her,  and  then 
into  Mr.  White's  chamber  by  its  back  door, 
and  saw  that  the  door  of  his  chamber,  lead 
ing  into  the  front  entry,  was  open.  On  ap 
proaching  the  bed,  he  found  the  bed-clothes 
turned  down,  and  Mr.  White  dead,  his  coun- 
V  tenance  pallid,  and  his  night-clothes  and  bed 
v  drenched  in  blood.  He  hastened  to  the 
neighboring  houses  to  make  known  the 
event.  He  and  the  maid-servant  were 
the  only  persons  who  slept  in  the  house 
that  night,  except  Mr.  White  himself,  whose 
niece,  Mrs.  Beckford,  his  house-keeper,  was 
then  absent  on  a  visit  to  her  daughter,  at 
Wenham. 

The  physicians  and  the  coroner's  jury,  who 
were  called  to  examine  the  body,  found  on 


it  thirteen  deep  stabs,  made  as  if  by  a  sharp 
dirk  or  poniard,  and  the  appearance  of  a 
heavy  blow  on  the  left  temple,  which  had 
fractured  the  skull,  but  not  broken  the  skin. 
The  body  was  cold,  and  appeared  to  have 
been  lifeless  many  hours. 

On  examining  the  apartments  of  the 
house,  it  did  not  appear  that  any  valuable 
articles  had  been  taken,  or  the  house  ran 
sacked  for  them;  there  was  a  rouleau  of 
doubloons  in  an  iron  chest  in  his  chamber, 
and  costly  plate  in  other  apartments,  none 
of  which  was  missing. 

The  perpetration  of  such  an  atrocious 
crime,  in  the  most  populous  and  central 
part  of  the  town  and  in  the  most  compactly 
built  street,  and  under  circumstances  indi 
cating  the  utmost  coolness,  deliberation,  and 
audacity,  deeply  agitated  and  aroused  the 
whole  community ;  ingenuity  was  baffled  in, 
attempting  even  to  conjecture  a  motive  for 
the  deed ;  and  all  the  citizens  were  led  to 
fear  that  the  same  fate  might  await  them 
in  the  defenceless  and  helpless  hours  of 
slumber.  For  several  days,  persons  passing 
through  the  streets  might  hear  the  continual 
sound  of  the  hammer,  while  carpenters  and 
smiths  were  fixing  bolts  to  doors  and  fasten 
ings  to  windows.  Many,  for  defence,  fur 
nished  themselves  with  cutlasses,  fire-arms, 
and  watch-dogs.  Large  rewards  for  the 
detection  of  the  author  or  authors  of  the 
murder  were  offered  by  the  heirs  of  the  de 
ceased,  by  the  selectmen  of  the  town,  and 
by  the  Governor  of  the  State.  The  citi 
zens  held  a  public  meeting,  and  appointed 
a  Committee  of  Vigilance,  of  twenty-seven 
members,  to  make  all  possible  exertions  to 
ferret  out  the  offenders. 

While  the  public  mind  was  thus  excited 
and  anxious,  it  was  announced  that  a  bold 
attempt  at  highway  robbery  was  made  ia 
Wenham,  by  three  footpads,  on  Joseph  J. 
Knapp,  Jr.  and  John  Francis  Knapp,  on  the 
evening  of  the  27th  of  April,  while  they 
were  returning  in  a  chaise  from  Salem  to 
their  residence  in  Wenham.  They  ap- 


190 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


peared  before  the  investigating  committee, 
and  testified  that,  after  nine  o'clock,  near 
the  Wenham  Pond,  they  discovered  three 
men  approaching.  One  came  near,  seized 
the  bridle,  and  stopped  the  horse,  while  the 
other  two  came,  one  on  each  side,  and  seized 
a  trunk  in  the  bottom  of  the  chaise.  Frank 
Knapp  drew  a  sword  from  his  cane  and 
made  a  thrust  at  one,  and  Joseph  with  the 
but-end  of  his  whip  gave  the  other  a  heavy 
blow  across  the  face.  This  bold  resistance 
made  them  fall  back.  Joseph  sprung  from 
the  chaise  to  assail  the  robbers.  One  of  them 
then  gave  a  shrill  whistle,  when  they  fled, 
and,  leaping  over  the  wall,  were  soon  lost 
in  the  darkness.  One  had  a  weapon  like  an 
ivory  dirk-handle,  was  clad  in  a  sailor's 
short  jacket,  cap,  and  had  whiskers ;  an 
other  wore  a  long  coat,  with  bright  buttons  ; 
all  three  were  good-sized  men.  Frank,  too, 
sprung  from  the  chaise,  and  pursued  with 
vigor,  but  all  in  vain. 

The  account  of  this  unusual  and  bold 
attempt  at  robbery,  thus  given  by  the 
Knapps,  was  immediately  published  in  the 
Salem  newspapers,  with  the  editorial  re 
mark,  that  "  these  gentlemen  are  well 
known  in  this  town,  and  their  respectability 
and  veracity  are  not  questioned  by  any  of 
our  citizens." 

Not  the  slightest  clew  to  the  murder  could 
be  found  for  several  weeks,  and  the  mystery 
seemed  to  be  impenetrable.  At  length  a 
rumor  reached  the  ear  of  the  committee 
that  a  prisoner  in  the  jail  at  New  Bedford, 
seventy  miles  from  Salem,  confined  there 
on  a  charge  of  shoplifting,  had  intimated 
that  he  could  make  important  disclosures. 
A  confidential  messenger  was  immediately 
sent,  to  ascertain  what  he  knew  on  the  sub 
ject.  The  prisoner's  name  was  Hatch  ;  he 
had  been  committed  before  the  murder. 
He  stated  that,  some  months  before  the 
murder,  while  he  was  at  large,  he  had  asso 
ciated  in  Salem  with  Richard  Crownin- 
shield,  Jr.,  of  Danvcrs,  and  had  often  heard 
Crowninshield  express  his  intention  to  de 
stroy  the  life  of  Mr.  White.  Crowninshield 
was  a  young  man,  of  bad  reputation  ;  though 
lie  had  never  been  convicted  of  any  offence, 
he  was  strongly  suspected  of  several  hei 
nous  robberies.  He  was  of  dark  and  re 
served  deportment,  temperate  and  wicked, 
daring  and  wary,  subtle  and  obdurate,  of 
great  adroitness,  boldness,  and  self-com 
mand.  He  had  for  several  years  frequented 
the  haunts  of  vice  in  Salem  ;  and  though  he 
was  often  spoken  of  as  a  dangerous  man, 
his  person  was  known  to  few,  for  he  never 
walked  the  streets  by  daylight.  Among 
his  few  associates  he  was  a  leader  and  a 
despot. 

The  disclosures  of  Hatch  received  credit. 
When  the  Supreme  Court  met  at  Ipswich, 
the  Attorney-General,  Morton,  moved  for  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  ad  test  if.,  and  Hatch  was 
carried  in  chains  from  New  Bedford  before 
the  grand  jury,  and  on  his  testimony  an  in 


dictment  was  found  against  Crowninshield. 
Other  witnesses  testified  that,  on  the  night 
of  the  murder,  his  brother,  George  Crown 
inshield,  Colonel  Benjamin  Selman,  of  Mar- 
blehead,  and  Daniel  Chase,  of  Lynn,  were 
together  m  Salem,  at  a  gambling-house 
usually  frequented  by  Richard  ;  these  were 
indicted  as  accomplices  in  the  crime.  They 
were  all  arrested  on  the  2d  of  May,  ar 
raigned  on  the  indictment,  and  committed 
to  prison  to  await  the  sitting  of  a  court  that 
should  have  jurisdiction  of  the  offence. 

The  Committee  of  Vigilance,  however, 
continued  to  hold  frequent  meetings  in 
order  to  discover  further  proof,  for  it  was 
doubted  by  many  whether  the  evidence  al 
ready  obtained  would  be  sufficient  to  con 
vict  the  accused. 

A  fortnight  afterwards,  on  the  15th  of 
May,  Captain  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  a  ship 
master  and  merchant,  a  man  of  good 
character,  received  by  mail  the  following 
letter :  — 

CHARLES  GRANT,  JR.,  TO  JOSEPH  J.  KNAPP. 

"Belfast,  J/iiy  12,  1830. 
"DEAR  SIR,  —  I  have  taken  the  pen  at  this 
time  to  address  an  utter  stranger,  and,  strange 
as  it  may  seem  to  you,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of 
requesting  the  loan  of  three  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars,  for  which  I  can  give  you  no  security  but 
mv  word,  and  in  this  case  consider  this  to  be 
sufficient.  My  call  for  money  at  this  time  is 
pressing,  or  I  would  not  trouble  you;  but  with 
that  sum,  I  have  the  prospect  of  turning  it  to  so 
much  advantage,  as  to  be  able  to  refund  it  with 
interest  in  the  course  of  six  months.  At  all 
events,  I  think  it  will  be  for  your  interest  to 
comply  with  my  request,  and  tliat  immediately, 
—  that  is,  not  'to  put  off  any  longer  than  you 
receive  this.  Then  set  down  and  enclose  me  the 
money  with  as  much  despatch  as  possible,  for 
your  own  interest.  This,  Sir.  is  my  advice ;  and 
if  Vou  do  not  comply  with  it,  the  short  period 
between  now  and  November  will  convince  you 
that  vou  have  denied  a  request,  the  granting  of 
which  will  never  injure  you,  the  refusal  of  which 
will  ruin  you.  Are  you  surprised  at  this  asser 
tion —  rest  assured  that  I  make  it,  reserving  to 
myself  the  reasons  and  a  series  of  facts,  which 
are  founded  on  such  a  bottom  as  will  bid  defiance 
to  property  or  quality.  It  is  useless  for  me  to 
enter  into"  a  discussion  of  facts  which  must  in 
evitably  harrow  up  your  soul.  No,  I  will  merely 
tell  you  that  I  am  acquainted  with  your  brother 
Franklin,  and  also  the  business  that  he  was 
transacting  for  you  on  the  2d  of  April  last;  and 
that  I  think  that  you  was  very  extravagant  in 
giving  one  thousand  dollars  to*  the  person  that 
would  execute  the  business  for  you.  But  you 
know  best  about  that ;  you  see  that  such  things 
will  leak  out.  To  conclude,  Sir,  I  will  inform 
you  that  there  is  a  gentleman  of  my  acquaint 
ance  in  Salem,  that  will  observe  that'you  do  not 
leave  town  before  the  first  of  June,  giving  you 
sufficient  time  between  now  and  then  to  comply 
with  my  request;  and  if  I  do  not  receive  a  line 
from  you,  together  with  the  above  sum,  before 
the  22d  of  this  month,  I  shall  wait  upon  you 
with  an  assistant.  I  have  said  enough  to  con 
vince  you  of  my  knowledge,  and  merely  inform 


THE  MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


191 


you  that  you  can,  when  you  answer,  be  as  brief 
as  possible. 

"  Direct  yours  to 
"CHARLES*  GRANT,  Jr.,  of  Prospect,  Maine." 

This  letter  was  an  unintelligible  enigma 
to  Captain  Knapp ;  he  knew  no  man  of  the 
name  of  Charles  Grant,  Jr.,  and  had  no  ac 
quaintance  at  Belfast,  a  town  in  Maine,  two 
hundred  miles  distant  from  Salem.  After 
poring  over  it  in  vain,  he  handed  it  to  his 
son,  Nathaniel  Phippen  Knapp,  a  young 
lawyer ;  to  him  also  the  letter  was  an  inex 
plicable  riddle.  The  receiving  of  such  a 
threatening  letter,  at  a  time  when  so  many 
felt  insecure,  and  were  apprehensive  of  dan 
ger,  demanded  their  attention.  Captain 
Knapp  and  his  son  Phippen,  therefore,  con 
cluded  to  ride  to  Wenham,  seven  miles  dis 
tant,  and  show  the  letter  to  Captain  Knapp's 
other  two  sons,  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  and 
John  Francis  Knapp,  who  were  then  resid 
ing  at  Wenham  with  Mrs.  Beckford,  the 
niece  and  late  house-keeper  of  Mr.  White, 
and  the  mother  of  the  wife  of  J.  J.  Knapp, 
Jr.  The  latter  perused  the  letter,  told  his 
father  it  "  contained  a  devilish  lot  of  trash," 
and  requested  him  to  hand  it  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  Vigilance.  Captain  Knapp,  on 
his  return  to  Salem  that  evening,  accord 
ingly  delivered  the  letter  to  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee. 

The  next  day  J.  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  went  to 
Salem,  and  requested  one  of  his  friends  to 
drop  into  the  Salem  post-office  the  two  fol 
lowing  pseudonymous  letters. 

"May  13,  1830. 

"GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  VIG 
ILANCE,  —  Hearing  that  you  have  taken  up  four 
young  men  on  suspicion  of  being  concerned  in 
the  murder  of  Mr.  White,  I  think  it  time  to  in 
form  you  that  Steven  White  came  to  me  one 
night  and  told  me,  if  I  would  remove  the  old 
gentleman,  he  would  give  me  five  thousand  dol 
lars  ;  he  said  he  was  afraid  he  would  alter  his 
will  if  he  lived  any  longer.  I  told  him  I  would 
do  it,  but  I  was  afeared  to  go  into  the  house,  so 
he  said  he  would  go  with  me,  that  he  would  try 
to  get  into  the  house  in  the  evening  and  open 
the  window,  would  then  go  home  and  go  to  bed 
and  meet  me  again  about  eleven.  I  found  him, 
and  we  both  went  into  his  chamber.  I  struck 
him  on  the  head  with  a  heavy  piece  of  lead,  and 
then  stabbed  him  with  a  dirk ;  he  made  the 
finishing  strokes  with  another.  He  promised  to 
send  me  the  money  next  evening,  and  has  not 
sent  it  yet,  which  is  the  reason  that  I  mention 
this. 

"  Yours,  &c., 

"GRANT." 

This  letter  was  directed  on  the  outside  to 
the  "  Hon.  Gideon  Barstow,  Salem,"  and 
put  into  the  post-office  on  Sunday  evening, 
May  16,  1830. 

"Lynn,  M ay  12,  1830. 

"  Mr.  White  will  send  the  85,000,  or  a  part 
of  it,  before  to-morrow  night,  or  suffer  the  pain 
ful  consequences. 

"  N.  CLAXTON,  4TH." 


This  letter  was  addressed  to  the  "  Hon. 
Stephen  White,  Salem,  Mass.,"  and  was 
also  put  into  the  post-office  in  Salem  on 
Sunday  evening. 

When  Knapp  delivered  these  letters  to 
his  friend,  he  said  his  father  had  received 
an  anonymous  letter,  and  "  What  I  want 
you  for  is  to  put  these  in  the  post-office  in 
order  to  nip  this  silly  affair  in  the  bud." 

The  Hon.  Stephen  White,  mentioned  in 
these  letters,  was  a  nephew  of  Joseph  White, 
and  the  legatee  of  the  principal  part  of  his 
large  property. 

When  the  Committee  of  Vigilance  read 
and  considered  the  letter,  purporting  to  be 
signed  by  Charles  Grant.  Jr.,  which  had  been 
delivered  to  them  by  Captain  Knapp,  they 
were  impressed  with  the  belief  that  it  con 
tained  a  clew  which  might  lead  to  important 
disclosures.  As  they  had  spared  no  pains 
or  expense  in  their  investigations,  they  im 
mediately  despatched  a  discreet  messenger 
to  Prospect,  in  Maine ;  he  explained  his  busi 
ness  confidentially  to  the  postmaster  there, 
deposited  a  letter  addressed  to  Charles 
Grant,  Jr.,  and  awaited  the  call  of  Grant 
to  receive  it.  He  soon  called  for  it,  when 
an  officer,  stationed  in  the  house,  stepped 
forward  and  arrested  Grant.  On  examin 
ing  him,  it  appeared  that  his  true  name  was 
Palmer,  a  young  man  of  genteel  appear 
ance,  resident  in  the  adjoining  town  of  Bel 
fast.  He  had  been  a  convict  in  Maine,  and 
had  served  a  term  in  the  State's  prison  in 
that  State.  Conscious  that  the  circum 
stances  justified  the  belief  that  he  had  had 
a  hand  in  the  murder,  he  readily  made 
known,  while  he  protested  his  own  inno 
cence,  that  he  could  unfold  the  whole  mys 
tery.  He  then  disclosed  that  he  had  been 
an  associate  of  R.  Crowninshield,  Jr.  and 
George  Crowninshield;  had  spent  part  of 
the  winter  at  Danvers  and  Salem,  under  the 
name  of  Carr ;  part  of  the  time  he  had  been 
their  inmate,  concealed  in  their  father's 
house  in  Danvers ;  that  on  the  2d  of  April 
he  saw  from  the  windows  of  the  house 
Frank  Knapp  and  a  young  man  named 
Allen  ride  up  to  the  house;  that  George 
walked  away  with  Frank,  and  Richard  with 
Allen ;  that  on  their  return,  George  told 
Richard  that  Frank  wished  them  to  under 
take  to  kill  Mr.  White,  and  that  J.  J.  Knapp, 
Jr.  would  pay  one  thousand  dollars  for  the 
job.  They  proposed  various  modes  of  exe 
cuting  it,  and  asked  Palmer  to  be  concerned, 
which  he  declined.  George  said  the  house 
keeper  would  be  away  at  the  time  ;  that  the 
object  of  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  was  to  de 
stroy  the  will,  because  it  gave  most  of  the 
property  to  Stephen  White ;  that  Joseph  J. 
Knapp,  Jr.  was  first  to  destroy  the  will ; 
that  he  could  get  from  the  house-keeper  the 
keys  of  the  iron  chest  in  which  it  was  kept ; 
that  Frank  called  again  the  same  day,  in  a 
chaise,  and  rode  away  with  Richard ;  and 
that  on  the  night  of  the  murder  Palmer 
stayed  at  the  Half-way  House,  in  Lynn. 


192 


THE   MURDER  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


The  messenger,  on  obtaining  this  dis 
closure  from  Palmer,  without  delay  com 
municated  it  by  mail  to  the  Committee,  and 
on  the  26th  of  May,  a  warrant  was  issued 
against  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  and  John 
Francis  Knapp,  and  they  were  taken  into 
custody  at  Wenham,  where  they  were  re 
siding  in  the  family  of  Mrs.  Beckford, 
mother  of  the  wife  of  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr. 
They  were  then  imprisoned  to  await  the 
arrival  of  Palmer,  for  their  examination. 

The  two  Knapps  were  young  ship 
masters,  of  a  respectable  family. 

Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.,  on  the  third  day  of 
his  imprisonment,  made  a  full  confession 
that  he  projected  the  murder.  He  knew 
that  Mr.  White  had  made  his  will,  and  given 
to  Mrs.  Beckford  a  legacy  of  fifteen  thou 
sand  dollars ;  but  if  he  died  without  leaving 
a  will,  he  expected  she  would  inherit  nearly 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars.  In  Feb 
ruary  he  made  known  to  his  brother  his 
desire  to  make  way  with  Mr.  White,  in 
tending  first  to  abstract  and  destroy  the 
will.  Frank  agreed  to  employ  an  assassin, 
and  negotiated  with  R.  Crowninshield,  Jr., 
who  agreed  to  do  the  deed  for  a  reward  of 
one  thousand  dollars ;  Joseph  agreed  to  pay 
that  sum,  and,  as  he  had  access  to  the  house 
at  his  pleasure,  he  was  to  unbar  and  un 
fasten  the  back  window,  so  that  Crownin 
shield  might  gain  easy  entrance.  Four  days 
before  the  murder,  while  they  were  deliber 
ating  on  the  mode  of  compassing  it,  he  went 
into  Mr.  White's  chamber,  and,  finding  the 
key  in  the  iron  chest,  unlocked  it,  took  the 
will,  put  it  in  his  chaise-box,  covered  it  with 
hay,  carried  it  to  Wenham,  kept  it  till  after 
the  murder,  and  then  burned  it.  After  se 
curing  the  will,  he  gave  notice  to  Crownin 
shield  that  all  was  ready.  In  the  evening 
of  that  day  he  had  a  meeting  with  Crownin 
shield  at  the  centre  of  the  common,  who 
showed  him  a  bludgeon  and  dagger,  with 
which  the  murder  was  to  be  committed. 
Knapp  asked  him  if  he  meant  to  do  it  that 
night ;  Crowninshield  said  he  thought  not, 
he  did  not  feel  like  it ;  Knapp  then  went  to 
Wenham.  Knapp  ascertained  on  Sunday, 
the  4th  of  April,  that  Mr.  White  had  gone 
to  take  tea  with  a  relative  in  Chestnut 
Street.  Crowninshield  intended  to  dirk 
him  on  his  way  home  in  the  evening,  but 
Mr.  White  returned  before  dark.  It  was 
next  arranged  for  the  night  of  the  6th,  and 
Knapp  was  on  some  pretext  to  prevail  on 
Mrs.  Beckford  to  visit  her  daughters  at 
Wenham,  and  to  spend  the  night  there. 
He  said  that,  all  preparations  being  thus 
complete.  Crowninshield  and  Frank  met 
about  ten  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  the  6th, 
in  Brown  Street,  which  passes  the  rear  of 
the  garden  of  Mr.  White,  and  stood  some 
time  in  a  spot  from  which  they  could  ob 
serve  the  movements  in  the  house,  and  per 
ceive  when  Mr.  White  and  his  two  servants 
retired  to  bed.  Crowninshield  requested 
Frank  to  go  home ;  he  did  so,  but  soon  re 


turned  to  the  same  spot.  Crowninshield,  in 
the  mean  time,  had  started  and  passed  round 
through  Newbury  Street  and  Essex  Street 
to  the  front  of  the  house,  entered  the  postern 
gate,  passed  to  the  rear  of  the  house,  placed 
a  plank  agginst  the  house,  climbed  to  the 
window,  opened  it,  entered  the  house  alone, 
passed  up  the  staircase,  opened  the  door  of 
the  sleeping-chamber,  approached  the  bed 
side,  gave  Mr.  White  a  heavy  and  mortal  blow 
on  the  head  with  a  bludgeon,  and  then  with 
a  dirk  gave  him  many  stabs  in  his  body. 
Crowninshield  said,  that,  after  he  had  "  done 
for  the  old  man,"  he  put  his  fingers  on  his 
pulse  to  make  certain  he  was  dead.  He 
then  retired  from  the  house,  hurried  back 
through  Brown  Street,  where  he  met  Frank, 
waiting  to  learn  the  event.  Crowninshield 
ran  down  Howard  Street,  a  solitary  place, 
and  hid  the  club  under  the  steps  of  a  meet 
ing-house.  He  then  went  home  to  Danvers. 

Joseph  confessed  further  that  the  ac 
count  of  the  Wenham  robbery,  on  the  27th 
of  April,  was  a  sheer  fabrication.  After 
the  murder  Crowninshield  went  to  Wen- 
ham  in  company  with  Frank  to  call  for  the 
one  thousand  dollars.  He  was  not  able  to 
pay  the  whole,  but  gave  him  one  hundred 
five-franc  pieces.  Crowninshield  related  to 
him  the  particulars  of  the  murder,  told  him 
where  the  club  was  hid,  and  said  he  was 
sorry  Joseph  had  not  got  the  right  will,  for 
if  he  had  known  there  was  another,  he 
would  have  got  it.  Joseph  sent  Frank 
afterwards  to  find  and  destroy  the  club,  but 
he  said  he  could  not  find  it.  When  Joseph 
made  the  confession,  he  told  the  place 
where  the  club  was  concealed,  and  it  was 
there  found ;  it  was  heavy,  made  of  hick 
ory,  twenty-two  and  a  half  inches  long,  of 
a  smooth  surface  and  large  oval  head, 
loaded  with  lead,  and  of  a  form  adapted  to 
give  a  mortal  blow  on  the  skull  without 
breaking  the  skin ;  the  handle  was  suited 
for  a  firm  grasp.  Crowninshield  said  he 
turned  it  in  a  lathe.  Joseph  admitted  he 
wrote  the  two  anonymous  letters. 

Crowninshield  had  hitherto  maintained 
a  stoical  composure  of  feeling ;  but  when 
he  was  informed  of  Knapp's  arrest,  his 
knees  smote  beneath  him,  the  sweat  started 
out  on  his  stern  and  pallid  face,  and  he  sub 
sided  upon  his  bunk. 

Palmer  was  brought  to  Salem  in  irons 
on  the  3d  of  June,  and  committed  to  prison. 
Crowninshield  saw  him  taken  from  the  car 
riage.  He  was  put  in  the  cell  directly  under 
that  in  which  Crowninshield  was  kept. 
Several  members  of  the  Committee  entered 
Palmer's  cell  to  talk  with  him  ;  while  they 
were  talking,  they  heard  a  loud  whistle, 
and,  on  looking  up,  saw  that  Crowninshield 
had  picked  away  the  mortar  from  the  crev 
ice  between  the  blocks  of  the  granite  floor 
of  his  cell.  After  the  loud  whistle,  he  cried 
out,  "  Palmer !  Palmer ! "  and  soon  let  down 
a  string,  to  which  were  tied  a  pencil  and  a 
slip  of  paper.  Two  lines  of  poetry  were 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


193 


written  on  the  paper,  in  order  that,  if  Palmer 
was  really  there,  he  should  make  it  known 
by  capping  the  verses  Palmer  shrunk 
away  into  a  corner,  and  was  soon  trans 
ferred  to  another  cell.  He  seemed  to  stand 
in  awe  of  Crowninshield. 

On  the  12th  of  June  a  quantity  of  stolen 
goods  was  found  concealed  in  the  barn  of 
Crowninshield,  in  consequence  of  informa 
tion  from  Palmer. 

Crowninshield,  thus  finding  the  proofs  of 
his  guilt  and  depravity  thicken,  on  the  15th 
of  June  committed  suicide  by  hanging  him 
self  to  the  bars  of  his  cell  with  a  handker 
chief.  He  left  letters  to  his  father  and 
brother,  expressing  in  general  terms  the 
viciousness  of  his  life,  and  his  hopelessness 
of  escape  from  punishment.  When  his 
associates  in  guilt  heard  his  fate,  they  said 
it  was  not  unexpected  by  them,  for  they 
had  often  heard  him  say  he  would  never 
live  to  submit  to  an  ignominious  punish 
ment. 

A  special  term  of  the  Supreme  Court  was 
held  at  Salem  on  the  20th  of  July,  for  the 
trial  of  the  prisoners  charged  with  the 
murder;  it  continued  in  session  till  the  20th 
of  August,  with  a  few  days'  intermission. 
An  indictment  for  the  murder  was  found 
against  John  Francis  Knapp,  as  principal, 
and  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  and  George 
Crowninshield,  as  accessories.  Selman  and 
Chase  were  discharged  by  the  Attorney- 
General. 

The  principal,  John  Francis  Knapp,  was 
first  put  on  trial.  As  the  law  then  stood, 
an  accessory  in  a  murder  could  not  be  tried 
until  a  principal  had  been  convicted.  He 
was  defended  by  Messrs.  Franklin  Dexter 
and  William  H.  Gardiner,  advocates  of  high 
reputation  for  ability  and  eloquence;  the 
trial  was  long  and  arduous,  and  the  wit 
nesses  numerous.  His  brother  Joseph,  who 
had  made  a  full  confession,  on  the  govern 
ment's  promise  of  impunity  if  he  would  in 
good  faith  testify  the  truth,  was  brought 
into  court,  called  to  the  stand  as  a  witness, 
but  declined  to  testify.  To  convict  the 
prisoner,  it  was  necessary  for  the  govern 
ment  to  prove  that  he  was  present,  actually 
or  constructively,  as  an  aider  or  abettor  in 
the  murder.  The  evidence  was  strong  that 
there  was  a  conspiracy  to  commit  the  mur 
der,  that  the  prisoner  was  one  of  the  con 
spirators,  that  at  the  time  of  the  murder  he 
was  in  Brown  Street  at  the  rear  of  Mr. 
White's  garden,  and  the  jury  were  satisfied 
that  he  was  in  that  place  to  aid  and  abet  in 
the  murder,  ready  to  afford  assistance,  if 
necessary.  He  was  convicted. 

Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  was  afterwards  tried 
as  an  accessory  before  the  fact,  and  con 
victed. 

George  Crowninshield  proved  an  alibi,  and 
was  discharged. 

The  execution  of  John  Francis  Knapp  and 
Joseph  J.  Knapp,  Jr.  closed  the  tragedy. 

If  Joseph,  after  turning  State's  evidence, 


had  not  changed  his  mind,  neither  he  nor 
his  brother,  nor  any  of  the  conspirators, 
could  have  been  convicted  ;  if  he  had  testi 
fied,  and  disclosed  the  whole  truth,  it  would 
have  appeared  that  John  Francis  Knapp 
was  in  Brown  Street,  not  to  render  assist 
ance  to  the  assassin ;  but  that  Crownin 
shield,  when  he  started  to  commit  the 
murder,  requested  Frank  to  go  home  and 
go  to  bed ;  that  Frank  did  go  home,  retire 
to  bed,  soon  after  arose,  secretly  left  his 
father's  house,  and  hastened  to  Brown 
Street,  to  await  the  coming  out  of  the  as 
sassin,  in  order  to  learn  whether  the  deed 
was  accomplished,  and  all  the  particulars. 
If  Frank  had  not  been  convicted  as  princi 
pal,  none  of  the  accessories  could  by  law 
have  been  convicted.  Joseph  would  not 
have  been  even  tried,  for  the  government 
stipulated,  that,  if  he  would  be  a  witness 
for  the  State,  he  should  go  clear. 

The  whole  history  of  this  occurrence  is 
of  romantic  interest.  The  murder  itself, 
the  corpus  delicti,  was  strange  ;  planned  with 
deliberation  and  sagacity,  and  executed 
with  firmness  and  vigor.  While  conjecture 
was  baffled  in  ascertaining  either  the  motive 
or  the  perpetrator,  it  was  certain  that  the 
assassin  had  acted  upon  design,  and  not  at 
random.  He  must  have  had  knowledge  of 
the  house,  for  the  window  had  been  unfas 
tened  from  within.  He  had  entered  stealth 
ily,  threaded  his  way  in  silence  through  the 
apartments,  corridors,  and  staircases,  and 
coolly  given  the  mortal  blow.  To  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  he  inflicted  many 
fatal  stabs,  "  the  least  a  death  to  nature," 
and  stayed  not  his  hand  till  he  had  deliber 
ately  felt  the  pulse  of  his  victim,  to  make 
certain  that  life  was  extinct. 

It  was  strange  that  Crowninshield,  the 
real  assassin,  should  have  been  indicted  and 
arrested  on  the  testimony  of  Hatch,  who 
was  himself  in  prison,  in  a  distant  part  of 
the  State,  at  the  time  of  the  murder,  and 
had  no  actual  knowledge  on  the  subject. 

It  was  very  strange  that  J.  J.  Knapp,  Jr. 
should  have  been  the  instrument  of  bring 
ing  to  light  the  mystery  of  the  whole  mur 
derous  conspiracy  ;  for  when  he  received 
from  the  hand  of  his  father  the  threatening 
letter  of  Palmer,  consciousness  of  guilt  so 
confounded  his  faculties,  that,  instead  of 
destroying  it,  he  stupidly  handed  it  back, 
and  requested  his  father  to  deliver  it  to  the 
Committee  of  Vigilance. 

It  was  strange  that  the  murder  should 
have  been  committed  on  a  mistake  in  law. 
Joseph,  some  time  previous  to  the  murder, 
had  made  inquiry  how  Mr.  White's  estate 
would  be  distributed  in  case  he  died  with 
out  a  will,  and  had  been  erroneously  told 
that  Mrs.  Beckford,  his  mother-in-law,  the 
sole  issue  and  representative  of  a  deceased 
sister  of  Mr.  White,  would  inherit  half  of 
the  estate,  and  that  the  four  children  and 
representatives  of  a  deceased  brother  of 
Mr.  White,  of  whom  the  Hon.  Stephen 
13 


194 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


White  was  one,  would  inherit  the  other 
half.  Joseph  had  privately  read  the  will, 
and  knew  that  Mr.  White  had  bequeathed 
to  Mrs.  Beckford  much  less  than  half. 

It  was  strange  that  the  murder  should 
have  been  committed  on  a  mistake  in  fact 
also.  Joseph  furtively  abstracted  a  will, 
and  expected  Mr.  White  would  die  intes 
tate  ;  but,  after  the  decease,  the  will,  the 
last  will,  was  found  by  his  heirs  in  its 
proper  place ;  and  it  could  never  have  been 
known,  or  conjectured,  without  the  aid  of 
Joseph's  confession,  that  he  had  made  either 
of  those  blunders. 

Finally,  it  was  a  strange  fact  that  Knapp 
should,  on  the  night  following  the  murder, 
have  watched  with  the  mangled  corpse,  and 
at  the  funeral  followed  the  hearse  as  one  of 
the  chief  mourners,  without  betraying  on 
either  occasion  the  slightest  emotion  which 
could  awaken  a  suspicion  of  his  guilt. 

The  following  note  was  prefixed  to  this 
argument  in  the  former  edition  :  — 

Mr.  White,  a  highly  respectable  and 
wealthy  citizen  of  Salem,  about  eighty 
years  of  age,  was  found,  on  the  morning  of 
the  7th  of  April,  1830,  in  his  bed,  mur 
dered,  under  such  circumstances  as  to  cre 
ate  a  strong  sensation  in  that  town  and 
throughout  the  community. 

Richard  Crowninshield,  George  Crownin- 
shield,  Joseph  J.  Knapp,  and  John  F.  Knapp 
were,  a  few  weeks  after,  arrested  on  a 
charge  of  having  perpetrated  the  murder, 
and  committed  for  trial.  Joseph  J.  Knapp, 
soon  after,  under  the  promise  of  favor  from 
government,  made  a  full  confession  of  the 
crime  and  the  circumstances  attending  it. 
In  a  few  days  after  this  disclosure  was 
made,  Richard  Crowninshield,  who  was  sup 
posed  to  have  been  the  principal  assassin, 
committed  suicide. 

A  special  session  of  the  Supreme  Court 
was  ordered  by  the  legislature,  for  the  trial 
of  the  prisoners,  at  Salem,  in  July.  At 
that  time,  John  F.  Knapp  was  indicted  as 
principal  in  the  murder,  and  George  Crown 
inshield  and  Joseph  J.  Knapp  as  accessories. 

On  account  of  the  death  of  Chief  Justice 
Parker,  which  occurred  on  the  26th  of  July, 
the  court  adjourned  to  Tuesday,  the  third 
day  of  August,  when  it  proceeded  in  the 
trial  of  John  F.  Knapp.  Joseph  J.  Knapp, 
being  called  upon,  refused  to  testify,  and  the 
pledge  of  the  government  was  withdrawn. 

At  the  request  of  the  prosecuting  officers 
of  the  government,  Mr.  Webster  appeared 
as  counsel,  and  assisted  in  the  trial. 

Mr.  Franklin  Dexter  addressed  the  jury 
on  behalf  of  the  prisoner,  and  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Mr.  Webster  in  the  following 
speech.] 

I  AM  little  accustomed,  Gentlemen,  to 
the  part  which  I  am  now  attempting  to 


perform.  Hardly  more  than  once  or 
twice  has  it  happened  to  me  to  be  con- 
cerned  on  the  side  of  the  government  in 
any  criminal  prosecution  whatever ;  and 
never,  until  the  present  occasion,  in  any 
case  affecting  life. 

But  I  very  much  regret  that  it  should 
have  been  thought  necessary  to  suggest 
to  you  that  I  am  brought  here  to  "  hurry 
you  against  the  law  and  beyond  the  evi 
dence.''  I  hope  I  have  too  much  regard 
for  justice,  and  too  much  respect  for  my 
own  character,  to  attempt  either;  and 
were  I  to  make  such  attempt,  I  am  sure 
that  in  this  court  nothing  can  be  carried 
against  the  law,  and  that  gentlemen,  in 
telligent  and  just  as  you  are,  are  not,  by 
any  power,  to  be  hurried  beyond  the  evi 
dence.  Though  I  could  well  have  wished 
to  shun  this  occasion,  I  have  not  felt  at 
liberty  to  withhold  my  professional  as 
sistance,  when  it  is  supposed  that  I  may 
be  in  some  degree  useful  in  investigat 
ing  and  discovering  the  truth  respecting 
this  most  extraordinary  murder.  It  has 
seemed  to  be  a  duty  incumbent  on  me, 
as  on  every  other  citizen,  to  do  my  best 
and  my  utmost  to  bring  to  light  the  per 
petrators  of  this  crime.  Against  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  as  an  individual,  I 
cannot  have  the  slightest  prejudice.  I 
would  not  do  him  the  smallest  injury  or 
injustice.  But  I  do  not  affect  to  be  in 
different  to  the  discovery  and  the  pun 
ishment  of  this  deep  guilt.  I  cheerfully 
share  in  the  opprobrium,  how  great  so 
ever  it  may  be,  which  is  cast  on  those 
who  feel  and  manifest  an  anxious  con 
cern  that  all  who  had  a  part  in  planning, 
or  a  hand  in  executing,  this  deed  of 
midnight  assassination,  may  be  brought 
to  answer  for  their  enormous  crime  at 
the  bar  of  public  justice. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  a  most  extraordinary 
case.  In  some  respects,  it  has  hardly  a 
precedent  anywhere;  certainly  none  in 
our  New  England  history.  This  bloody 
drama  exhibited  no  suddenly  excited, 
ungovernable  rage.  The  actors  in  it 
were  not  surprised  by  any  lion-like 
temptation  springing  upon  their  vir 
tue,  and  overcoming  it,  before  resist 
ance  could  begin.  Nor  did  they  do 
the  deed  to  glut  savage  vengeance,  or 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


195 


satiate  long-settled  and  deadly  hate.  It 
was  a  cool,  calculating,  money-making 
murder.  It  was  ail  "  hire  and  salary, 
not  revenge."  It  was  the  weighing  of 
money  against  life ;  the  counting  out  of 
so  many  pieces  of  silver  against  so  many 
ounces  of  blood. 

An  aged  man,  without  an  enemy  in 
the  world,  in  his  own  house,  and  in  his 
own  bed,  is  made  the  victim  of  a  butch 
erly  murder,  for  mere  pay.  Truly, 
here  is  a  new  lesson  for  painters  and  po 
ets.  Whoever  shall  hereafter  draw  the 
portrait  of  murder,  if  he  will  show  it  as 
it  has  been  exhibited,  where  such  ex 
ample  was  last  to  have  been  looked  for, 
in  the  very  bosom  of  our  New  England 
society,  let  him  not  give  it  the  grim  visage 
of  Moloch,  the  brow  knitted  by  revenge, 
the  face  black  with  settled  hate,  and  the 
bloodshot  eye  emitting  livid  fires  of 
malice.  Let  him  draw,  rather,  a  deco 
rous,  smooth-faced,  bloodless  demon;  a 
picture  in  repose,  rather  than  in  action; 
not  so  much  an  example  of  human  na 
ture  in  its  depravity,  and  in  its  parox 
ysms  of  crime,  as  an  infernal  being, 
a  fiend,  in  the  ordinary  display  and  de 
velopment  of  his  character. 

The  deed  was  executed  with  a  degree 
of  self-possession  and  steadiness  equal 
to  the  wickedness  with  which  it  was 
planned.  The  circumstances  now  clearly 
in  evidence  spread  out  the  whole  scene 
before  us.  Deep  sleep  had  fallen  on 
the  destined  victim,  and  on  all  beneath 
his  roof.  A  healthful  old  man,  to  whom 
sleep  was  sweet,  the  first  sound  slum 
bers  of  the  night  held  him  in  their  soft 
but  strong  embrace.  The  assassin  en 
ters,  through  the  window  already  pre 
pared,  into  an  unoccupied  apartment. 
With  noiseless  foot  he  paces  the  lonely 
hall,  half  lighted  by  the  moon ;  he  winds 
up  the  ascent  of  the  stairs,  and  reaches 
the  door  of  the  chamber.  Of  this,  he 
moves  the  lock,  by  soft  and  continued 
pressure,  till  it  turns  on  its  hinges  with 
out  noise;  and  he  enters,  and  beholds 
his  victim  before  him.  The  room  is 
uncommonly  open  to  the  admission  of 
light.  The  face  of  the  innocent  sleeper 
is  turned  from  the  murderer,  and  the 
beams  of  the  moon,  resting  on  the  gray 


locks  of  his  aged  temple,  show  him 
where  to  strike.  The  fatal  blow  is 
given!  and  the  victim  passes,  without 
a  struggle  or  a  motion,  from  the  repose 
of  sleep  to  the  repose  of  death!  It  is 
the  assassin's  purpose  to  make  sure 
work;  and  he  plies  the  dagger,  though 
it  is  obvious  that  life  has  been  destroyed 
by  the  blow  of  the  bludgeon.  He  even 
raises  the  aged  arm,  that  he  may  not 
fail  in  his  aim  at  the  heart,  and  replaces 
it  again  over  the  wounds  of  the  poniard ! 
To  finish  the  picture,  he  explores  the 
wrist  for  the  pulse !  He  feels  for  it,  and 
ascertains  that  it  beats  no  longer !  It  is 
accomplished.  The  deed  is  done.  He 
retreats,  retraces  his  steps  to  the  win 
dow,  passes  out  through  it  as  he  came 
in,  and  escapes.  He  has  done  the  mur 
der.  No  eye  has  seen  him,  no  ear  has 
heard  him.  The  secret  is  his  own,  and 
it  is  safe ! 

Ah!  Gentlemen,  that  wras  a  dreadful 
mistake.  Such  a  secret  can  be  safe  no 
where.  The  whole  creation  of  God  has 
neither  nook  nor  corner  where  the  guilty 
can  bestow' it,  and  say  it  is  safe.  Not 
to  speak  of  that  eye  which  pierces 
through  all  disguises,  and  beholds  every 
thing  as  in  the  splendor  of  noon,  such 
secrets  of  guilt  are  never  safe  from  de 
tection,  even  by  men.  True  it  is,  gen 
erally  speaking,  that  "  murder  will  out." 
True  it  is,  that  Providence  hath  so  or 
dained,  and  doth  so  govern  things,  that 
those  who  break  the  great  law  of  Heaven 
by  shedding  man's  blood  seldom  suc 
ceed  in  avoiding  discovery.  Especially, 
in  a  case  exciting  so  much  attention  as 
this,  discovery  must  come,  and  will  come, 
sooner  or  later.  A  thousand  eyes  turn 
at  once  to  explore  every  man,  every 
thing,  every  circumstance,  connected 
with  the  time  and  place;  a  thousand 
ears  catch  every  whisper ;  a  thousand  ex 
cited  minds  intensely  dwell  on  the  scene, 
shedding  all  their  light,  and  ready  to 
kindle  the  slightest  circumstance  into  a 
blaze  of  discovery.  Meantime  the  guilty 
soul  cannot  .keep  its  own  secret.  It  is 
false  to  itself ;  or  rather  it  feels  an  irre 
sistible  impulse  of  conscience  to  be  true 
to  itself.  It  labors  under  its  guilty  pos 
session,  and  knows  not  what  to  do  with 


196 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


it.  The  human  heart  was  not  made  for 
the  residence  of  such  an  inhabitant.  It 
finds  itself  preyed  on  by  a  torment, 
which  it  dares  not  acknowledge  to  God 
or  man.  A  vulture  is  devouring  it,  and 
it  can  ask  no  sympathy  or  assistance, 
either  from  heaven  or  earth.  The  secret 
which  the  murderer  possesses  soon  comes 
to  possess  him;  and,  like  the  evil  spirits 
of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him,  and 
leads  him  whithersoever  it  will.  He 
feels  it  beating  at  his  heart,  rising  to 
his  throat,  and  demanding  disclosure. 
lie  thinks  the  whole  world  sees  it  in  his 
face,  reads  it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost 
hears  its  workings  in  the  very  silence  of 
his  thoughts.  It  has  become  his  mas 
ter.  It  betrays  his  discretion,  it  breaks 
do\y:i  his  courage,  it  conquers  his  pru 
dence.  When  suspicions  from  without 
begin  to  embarrass  him,  and  the  net  of 
circumstance  to  entangle  him,  the  fatal 
secret  struggles  with  still  greater  vio 
lence  to  burst  forth.  It  must  be  con 
fessed,  it  will  be  confessed;  there  is  no 
refuge  from  confession  but  suicide,  and 
suicide  is  confession. 

Much  has  been  said,  on  this  occasion, 
of  the  excitement  which  has  existed, 
and  still  exists,  and  of  the  extraordinary 
measures  taken  to  discover  and  punish 
the  guilty.  No  doubt  there  has  been, 
and  is,  much  excitement,  and  strange 
indeed  it  would  be  had  it  been  other 
wise.  Should  not  all  the  peaceable  and 
well-disposed  naturally  feel  concerned, 
and  naturally  exert  themselves  to  bring 
to  punishment  the  authors  of  this  secret 
assassination?  Was  it  a  thing  to  be 
slept  upon  or  forgotten?  Did  you,  Gen 
tlemen,  sleep  quite  as  quietly  in  your 
beds  after  this  murder  as  before?  Was 
it  not  a  case  for  rewards,  for  meetings, 
for  committees,  for  the  united  efforts  of 
all  the  good,  to  find  out  a  band  of  murder 
ous  conspirators,  of  midnight  ruffians, 
and  to  bring  them  to  the  bar  of  justice 
and  law?  If  this  be  excitement,  is  it  an 
unnatural  or  an  improper  excitement? 

It  seems  to  nie,  Gentlemen,  that  there 
are  appearances  of  another  feeling,  of  a 
very  different  nature  and  character ;  not 
very  extensive,  I  would  hope,  but  still 
there  is  too  much  evidence  of  its  exist 


ence.  Such  is  human  nature,  that  some 
persons  lose  their  abhorrence  of  crime 
in  their  admiration  of  its  magnificent 
exhibitions.  Ordinary  vice  is  repro 
bated  bji  them,  but  extraordinary  guilt, 
exquisite  wickedness,  the  high  flights 
and  poetry  of  crime,  seize  on  the  imagi 
nation,  and  lead  them  to  forget  the 
depths  of  the  guilt,  in  admiration  of 
the  excellence  of  the  performance,  or 
the  unequalled  atrocity  of  the  purpose. 
There  are  those  in  our  day  who  have 
made  greac'use  of  this  infirmity  of  our 
nature,  and  by  means  of  it  done  infinite 
injury  to  the  cause  of  good  morals. 
They  have  affected  not  only  the  taste, 
but  I  fear  also  the  principles,  of  the 
young,  the  heedless,  and  the  imagina 
tive,  by  the  exhibition  of  interesting 
and  beautiful  monsters.  They  render 
depravity  attractive,  sometimes  by  the 
polish  of  its  manners,  and  sometimes 
by  its  very  extravagance ;  and  study  to 
show  off  crime  under  all  the  advantages 
of  cleverness  and  dexterity.  Gentle 
men,  this  is  an  extraordinary  murder, 
but  it  is  still  a  murder.  We  are  not  to 
lose  ourselves  in  wonder  at  its  origin,  or 
in  gazing  on  its  cool  an$  skilful  execu 
tion.  We  are  to  detect  and  to  punish 
it;  and  while  we  proceed  with  caution 
against  the  prisoner,  and  are  to  be  sure 
that  we  do  not  visit  on  his  head  the 
offences  of  others,  we  are  yet  to  con 
sider  that  we  are  dealin-g  with  a  case  of 
most  atrocious  crime,  which  has  not  the 
slightest  circumstance  about  it  to  soften 
its  enormity.  It  is  murder;  deliberate, 
concerted,  malicious  murder. 

Although  the  interest  of  this  case  may 
have  diminished  by  the  repeated  inves 
tigation  of  the  facts;  still,  the  addi 
tional  labor  which  it  imposes  upon  all 
concerned  is  not  to  be  regretted,  if  it 
should  result  in  removing  all  doubts  of 
the  guilt  of  the  prisoner. 

The  learned  counsel  for  the  prisoner 
has  said  truly,  that  it  is  your  individ 
ual  duty  to  judge  the  prisoner;  that 
it  is  your  individual  duty  to  determine 
his  guilt  or  innocence;  and  that  you 
are  to  weigh  the  testimony  with  can 
dor  and  fairness.  But  much  at  the 
same  time  has  been  said,  which,  al- 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


197 


though  it  would  seem  to  have  no  dis 
tinct  bearing  on  the  trial,  cannot  be 
passed  over  without  some  notice. 

A  tone  of  complaint  so  peculiar  has 
been  indulged,  as  would  almost  lead  us 
to  doubt  whether  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  or  the  managers  of  this  prosecu 
tion,  are  now  on  trial.  Great  pains 
have  been  taken  to  complain  of  the 
manner  of  the  prosecution.  We  hear 
of  getting  up  a  case ;  of  setting  in  mo 
tion  trains  of  machinery ;  of  foul  testi 
mony;  of  combinations  to  overwhelm 
the  prisoner;  of  private  prosecutors; 
that  the  prisoner  is  hunted,  persecuted, 
driven  to  his  trial;  that  everybody  is 
against  him;  and  various  other  com 
plaints,  as  if  those  who  would  bring  to 
punishment  the  authors  of  this  murder 
were  almost  as  bad  as  they  who  com 
mitted  it. 

In  the  course  of  my  whole  life,  I  have 
never  heard  before  so  much  said  about 
the  particular  counsel  who  happen  to  be 
employed;  as  if  it  were  extraordinary 
that  other  counsel  than  the  usual  offi 
cers  of  the  government  should  assist  in 
the  management  of  a  case  on  the  part 
of  the  government.  In  one  of  the  last 
criminal  trials  in  this  county,  that  of 
Jackman  for  the  "  Goodridge  robbery  " 
(so  called),  I  remember  that  the  learned 
head  of  the  Suffolk  Bar,  Mr.  Prescott, 
came  down  in  aid  of  the  officers  of  the 
government.  This  was  regarded  as 
neither  strange  nor  improper.  The 
counsel  for  the  prisoner,  in  that  case, 
contented  themselves  writh  answering 
his  arguments,  as  far  as  they  were  able, 
instead  of  carping  at  his  presence. 

Complaint  is  made  that  rewards  were 
offered,  in  this  case,  and  temptations 
held  out  to  obtain  testimony.  Are  not 
rewards  always  offered,  when  great  and 
secret  offences  are  committed  V  Rewards 
were  offered  in  the  case  to  which  I  have 
alluded ;  and  every  other  means  taken  to 
discover  the  offenders,  that  ingenuity 
or  the  most  persevering  vigilance  could 
suggest.  The  learned  counsel  have  suf 
fered  their  zeal  to  lead  them  into  a  strain 
of  complaint  at  the  manner  in  which 
the  perpetrators  of  this  crime  were  de 
tected,  almost  indicating  that  they  re 


gard  it  as  a  positive  injury  to  them  to 
have  found  out  their  guilt.  Since  no 
man  witnessed  it,  since  they  do  not  now 
confess  it,  attempts  to  discover  it  are 
half  esteemed  as  officious  intermeddling 
and  impertinent  inquiry. 

It  is  said,  that  here  even  a  Committee 
of  Vigilance  was  appointed.  Tins  is  a 
subject  of  reiterated  remark.  This  com 
mittee  are  pointed  at,  as  though  they 
had  been  officiously  intermeddling  with 
the  administration  of  justice.  They 
are  said  to  have  been  ' '  laboring  for 
months  "  against  the  prisoner.  Gentle 
men,  what  must  we  do  in  such  a  case? 
Are  people  to  be  dumb  and  still,  through 
fear  of  overdoing?  Is  it  come  to  this, 
that  an  effort  cannot  be  made,  a  hand 
cannot  be  lifted,  to  discover  the  guilty, 
without  its  being  said  there  is  a  combi 
nation  to  overwhelm  innocence?  Has 
the  community  lost  all  moral  sense? 
Certainly,  a  community  that  would  not 
be  roused  to  action  upon  an  occasion 
such  as  this  was,  a  community  which 
should  not  deny  sleep  to  their  eyes,  and 
slumber  to  their  eyelids,  till  they  had 
exhausted  all  the  means  of  discovery 
and  detection,  must  indeed  be  lost  to 
all  moral  sense,  and  would  scarcely  de 
serve  protection  from  the  laws.  The 
learned  counsel  have  endeavored  to  per 
suade  you,  that  there  exists  a  prejudice 
against  the  persons  accused  of  this  mur 
der.  They  would  have  you  understand 
that  it  is  not  confined  to  this  vicinity 
alone;  but  that  even  the  legislature 
have  caught  this  spirit.  That  through 
the  procurement  of  the  gentleman  here 
styled  private  prosecutor,  who  is  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Senate,  a  special  session  of 
this  court  was  appointed  for  the  trial 
of  these  offenders.  That  the  ordinary 
movements  of  the  wheels  of  justice  were 
too  slow  for  the  purposes  devised.  But 
does  not  everybody  see  and  know,  that 
it  was  matter  of  absolute  necessity  to 
have  a  special  session  of  the  court? 
When  or  how  could  the  prisoners  have 
been  tried  without  a  special  session? 
In  the  ordinary  arrangement  of  the 
courts,  but  one  week  in  a  year  is  al 
lotted  for  the  whole  court  to  sit  in  this 
!  county.  In  the  trial  of  all  capital  of- 


198 


THE   MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


fences  a  majority  of  the  court,  at  least, 
is  required  to  be  present.  In  the  trial 
of  the  present  case  alone,  three  weeks 
have  already  been  taken  up.  Without 
such  special  session,  then,  three  years 
would  not  have  been  sufficient  for  the 
purpose.  It  is  answer  sufficient  to  all 
complaints  on  this  subject  to  say,  that 
the  law  was  drawn  by  the  late  Chief 
Justice  himself,1  to  enable  the  court  to 
accomplish  its  duties,  and  to  afford  the 
persons  accused  an  opportunity  for  trial 
without  delay. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  it  was  not  thought 
of  making  Francis  Knapp,  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  a  PRINCIPAL  till  after  the 
death  of  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr. ; 
that  the  present  indictment  is  an  after 
thought;  that  "  testimony  was  got  up  " 
for  the  occasion.  It  is  not  so.  There 
is  no  authority  for  this  suggestion.  The 
case  of  the  Knapps  had  not  then  been 
before  the  grand  jury.  The  officers  of 
the  government  did  not  know  what  the 
testimony  would  be  against  them.  They 
could  not,  therefore,  have  determined 
what  course  they  should  pursue.  They 
intended  to  arraign  all  as  principals  who 
should  appear  to  have  been  principals, 
and  all  as  accessories  who  should  appear 
to  have  been  accessories.  All  this  could 
be  known  only  when  the  evidence  should 
be  produced. 

But  the  learned  counsel  for  the  de 
fendant  take  a  somewhat  loftier  flight 
still.  They  are  more  concerned,  they 
assure  us,  for  the  law  itself,  than  even 
for  their  client.  Your  decision  in  this 
case,  they  say,  will  stand  as  a  precedent. 
Gentlemen,  we  hope  it  will.  We  hope  it 
will  be  a  precedent  both  of  candor  and 
intelligence,  of  fairness  and  of  firmness; 
a  precedent  of  good  sense  and  honest 
purpose  pursuing  their  investigation  dis 
creetly,  rejecting  loose  generalities,  ex 
ploring  all  the  circumstances,  weighing 
each,  in  search  of  truth,  and  embracing 
and  declaring  the  truth  when  found. 

It  is  said,  that  "  laws  are  made,  not 
for  the  punishment  of  the  guilty,  but  for 
the  protection  of  the  innocent."  This  is 
not  quite  accurate,  perhaps,  but  if  so,  we 
hope  they  will  be  so  administered  as  to 
1  Chief  Justice  Parker. 


give  that  protection.  But  who  are  the 
innocent  whom  the  law  would  protect? 
Gentlemen,  Joseph  AVhite  was  innocent. 
They  are  innocent  who,  having  lived  in 
the  fear«f  God  through  the  day,  wish  to 
sleep  in  his  peace  through  the  night,  in 
their  own  beds.  The  law  is  established 
that  those  who  live  quietly  may  sleep 
quietly;  that  they  who  do  no  harm  may 
feel  none.  The  gentleman  can  think  of 
none  that  are  innocent  except  the  pris 
oner  at  the^bar,  not  yet  convicted.  Is 
a  proved  conspirator  to  murder  inno 
cent?  Are  the  Crowninshields  and  the 
Knapps  innocent?  What  is  innocence? 
How  deep  stained  with  blood,  how  reck 
less  in  crime,  how  deep  in  depravity  may 
it  be,  and  yet  retain  innocence?  The 
law  is  made,  if  we  would  speak  with  en 
tire  accuracy,  to  protect  the  innocent  by 
punishing  the  guilty.  But  there  are  those 
innocent  out  of  a  court,  as  well  as  in ; 
innocent  citizens  not  suspected  of  crime, 
as  well  as  innocent  prisoners  at  the  bar. 
The  criminal  law  is  not  founded  in  a 
principle  of  vengeance.  It  does  not  pun 
ish  that  it  may  inflict  suffering.  The 
humanity  of  the  -law  feels  and  regrets 
every  pain  it  causes,  every  hour  of  re 
straint  it  imposes,  and  more  deeply  still 
every  life  it  forfeits.  But  it  uses  evil  as 
the  means  of  preventing  greater  evil. 
It  seeks  to  deter  from  crime  by  the  ex 
ample  of  punishment.  This  is  its  true, 
and  only  true  main  object.  It  restrains 
the  liberty  of  the  few  offenders,  that 
the  many  who  do  not  offend  may  enjoy 
their  liberty.  It  takes  the  life  of  the 
murderer,  that  other  murders  may  not 
be  committed.  The  law  might  open  the 
jails,  and  at  once  set  free  all  persons  ac 
cused  of  offences,  and  it  ought  to  do  so 
if  it  could  be  made  certain  that  no  other 
offences  would  hereafter  be  committed; 
because  it  punishes,  not  to  satisfy  any 
desire  to  inflict  pain,  but  simply  to  pre 
vent  the  repetition  of  crimes.  When 
the  guilty,  therefore,  are  not  punished, 
the  law  has  so  far  failed  of  its  purpose; 
the  safety  of  the  innocent  is  so  far  en 
dangered.  Every  unpunished  murder 
takes  away  something  from  the  security 
of  every  man's  life.  Whenever  a  jury, 
through  whimsical  and  ill-founded  scru- 


THE   MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN    JOSEPH   WHITE. 


199 


pies,  suffer  the  guilty  to  escape,  they 
make  themselves  answerable  for  the 
augmented  danger  of  the  innocent. 

We  wish  nothing  to  be  strained  against 
this  defendant.  Why,  then,  all  this 
alarm?  Why  all  this  complaint  against 
the  manner  in  \vhich  the  crime  is  dis 
covered?  The  prisoner's  counsel  catch 
at  supposed  flaws  of  evidence,  or  bad 
character  of  witnesses,  without  meeting 
the  case.  Do  they  mean  to  deny  the 
conspiracy?  Do  they  mean  to  deny  that 
the  two  Crowninshields  and  the  two 
Knapps  were  conspirators?  Why  do  they 
rail  against  Palmer,  while  they  do  not 
disprove,  and  hardly  dispute,  the  truth 
of  any  one  fact  sworn  to  by  him?  In 
stead  of  this,  it  is  made  matter  of  senti 
mentality  that  Palmer  has  been  prevailed 
upon  to  betray  his  bosom  companions 
and  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  friendship. 
Again  I  ask,  Why  do  they  not  meet  the 
case?  If  the  fact  is  out,  why  not  meet 
it?  Do  they  mean  to  deny  that  Captain 
White  is  dead?  One  would  have  almost 
supposed  even  that,  from  some  remarks 
that  have  been  made.  Do  they  mean  to 
deny  the  conspiracy  ?  Or,  admitting  a 
conspiracy,  do  they  mean  to  deny  only 
that  Frank  Knapp,  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  was  abetting  in  the  murder,  being 
present,  and  so  deny  that  he  was  a  prin 
cipal?  If  a  conspiracy  is  proved,  it  bears 
closely  upon  every  subsequent  subject  of 
inquiry.  Why  do  they  not  come  to  the 
fact?  Here  the  defence  is  wholly  in 
distinct.  The  counsel  neither  take  the 
ground,  nor  abandon  it.  They  neither 
tiy,  nor  light.  They  hover.  But  they 
must  come  to  a  closer  mode  of  con 
test.  They  must  meet  the  facts,  and 
either  deny  or  admit  them.  Had  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  then,  a  knowledge 
of  this  conspiracy  or  not?  This  is  the 
question.  Instead  of  laying  out  their 
strength  in  complaining  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  deed  is  discovered,  of  the 
extraordinary  pains  taken  to  bring  the 
prisoner's  guilt  to  light,  would  it  not 
be  better  to  show  there  was  no  guilt? 
Would  it  not  be  better  to  show  his  inno 
cence  ?  They  say,  and  they  complain,  that 
the  community  feel  a  great  desire  that 
he  should  be  punished  for  his  crimes. 


W^ould  it  not  be  better  to  convince  you 
that  he  has  committed  no  crime? 

Gentlemen,  let  us  now  come  to  the 
case.  Your  first  inquiry,  on  the  evi 
dence,  will  be,  Was  Captain  White 
murdered  in  pursuance  of  a  conspir 
acy,  and  was  the  defendant  one  of  this 
conspiracy?  If  so,  the  second  inquiry 
is,  Was  he  so  connected  with  the  mur 
der  itself  as  that  he  is  liable  to  be  con 
victed  as  a  principal  ?  The  defendant  is 
indicted  as  a  principal.  If  not  guilty  as 
such,  you  cannot  convict  him.  The  in 
dictment  contains  three  distinct  classes 
of  counts.  In  the  first,  he  is  charged  as 
having  done  the  deed  with  his  own 
hand;  in  the  second,  as  an  aider  and 
abettor  to  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr., 
who  did  the  deed;  in  the  third,  as  an 
aider  and  abettor  to  some  person  un 
known.  If  you  believe  him  guilty  on 
either  of  these  counts,  or  in  either  of 
these  ways,  you  must  convict  him. 

It  may  be  proper  to  say,  as  a  prelimi 
nary  remark,  that  there  are  two  extraor 
dinary  circumstances  attending  this  trial. 
One  is,  that  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr., 
the  supposed  immediate  perpetrator  of 
the  murder,  since  his  arrest,  has  com 
mitted  suicide.  He  has  gone  to  answer 
before  a  tribunal  of  perfect  infallibility. 
The  other  is,  that  Joseph  Knapp,  the 
supposed  originator  and  planner  of  the 
murder,  having  once  made  a  full  dis 
closure  of  the  facts,  under  a  promise  of 
indemnity,  is,  nevertheless,  not  now  a 
witness.  Notwithstanding  his  disclos 
ure  and  his  promise  of  indemnity,  he 
now  refuses  to  testify.  He  chooses  to 
return  to  his  original  state,  and  now 
stands  answerable  himself,  when  the 
time  shall  come  for  his  trial.  These  cir 
cumstances  it  is  fit  you  should  remem 
ber,  in  your  investigation  of  the  case. 

Your  decision  may  affect  more  than 
the  life  of  this  defendant.  If  he  be  not 
convicted  as  principal,  no  one  can  be. 
Nor  can  any  one  be  convicted  of  a  par 
ticipation  in  the  crime  as  accessory. 
The  Knapps  and  George  Crowninshield 
will  be  again  on  the  community.  This 
shows  the  importance  of  the  duty  you 
have  to  perform,  and  serves  to  remind 
you  of  the  care  and  wisdom  necessary  to 


200 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


be  exercised  in  its  performance.  But 
certainly  these  considerations  do  not 
render  the  prisoner's  guilt  any  clearer, 
nor  enhance  the  weight  of  the  evidence 
against  him.  No  one  desires  you  to  re 
gard  consequences  in  that  light.  No  one 
wishes  any  thing  to  be  strained,  or  too  far 
pressed  against  the  prisoner.  Still,  it  is 
fit  you  should  see  the  full  importance  of 
the  duty  which  devolves  upon  you. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  in  examining 
this  evidence,  let  us  begin  at  the  begin 
ning,  and  see  first  what  we  know  in 
dependent  of  the  disputed  testimony. 
This  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence. 
And  these  circumstances,  we  think,  are 
full  and  satisfactory.  The  case  mainly 
depends  upon  them,  and  it  is  common 
that  offences  of  this  kind  must  be  proved 
in  this  way.  Midnight  assassins  take 
no  witnesses.  The  evidence  of  the  facts 
relied  on  has  been  somewhat  sneeringly 
denominated,  by  the  learned  counsel, 
"circumstantial  stuff,"  but  it  is  not 
such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  of.  Why 
does  he  not  rend  this  stuff?  Why  does 
he  not  scatter  it  to  the  winds?  He  dis 
misses  it  a  little  too  summarily.  It  shall 
be  my  business  to  examine  this  stuff, 
and  try  its  cohesion. 

The  letter  from  Palmer  at  Belfast,  is 
that  no  more  than  flimsy  stuff? 

The  fabricated  letters  from  Knapp  to 
the  committee  and  to  Mr.  White,  are 
they  nothing  but  stuff?  * 

The  circumstance,  that  the  house 
keeper  was  away  at  the  time  the  murder 
was  committed,  as  it  was  agreed  she 
would  be,  is  that,  too,  a  useless  piece  of 
the  same  stuff? 

The  facts,  that  the  key  of  the  cham 
ber  door  was  taken  out  and  secreted; 
that  the  window  was  unbarred  and  un 
bolted  ;  are  these  to  be  so  slightly  and  so 
easily  disposed  of? 

It  is  necessary,  Gentlemen,  to  settle 
now,  at  the  commencement,  the  great 
question  of  a  conspiracy.  If  there  was 
none,  or  the  defendant  was  not  a  party, 
then  there  is  no  evidence  here  to  convict 
him.  If  there  was  a  conspiracy,  and 
he  is  proved  to  have  been  a  party,  then 
these  two  facts  have  a  strong  bearing  on 
others,  and  all  the  great  points  of  in 


quiry.  The  defendant's  counsel  take  no 
distinct  ground,  as  I  have  already  said, 
on  this  point,  either  to  admit  or  to  deny. 
They  choose  to  confine  themselves  to  a 
hypothetical  mode  of  speech.  They  say, 
supposing  there  was  a  conspiracy,  non 
sequitur  that  the  prisoner  is  guilty  as 
principal.  Be  it  so.  But  still,  if  there 
was  a  conspiracy,  and  if  he  was  a  con 
spirator,  arid  helped  to  plan  the  murder, 
this  may  shed  much  light  on  the  evidence 
which  goes  to  charge  him  with  the  exe 
cution  of  that  plan. 

We  mean  to  make  out  the  conspiracy ; 
and  that  the  defendant  was  a  party  to  it ; 
and  then  to  draw  all  just  inferences  from 
these  facts. 

Let  me  ask  your  attention,  then,  in  the 
first  place,  to  those  appearances,  on  the 
morning  after  the  murder,  which  have  a 
tendency  to  show  that  it  was  done  in  pur 
suance  of  a  preconcerted  plan  of  opera 
tion.  What  are  they?  A  man  was  found 
murdered  in  his  bed.  No  stranger  had 
done  the  deed,  no  one  unacquainted  with 
the  house  had  done  it.  It  was  apparent 
that  somebody  within  had  opened,  and 
that  somebody  without  had  entered. 
There  had  obviously  and  certainly  been 
concert  and  co-operation.  The  inmates 
of  the  house  were  not  alarmed  when  the 
murder  was  perpetrated.  The  assassin 
had  entered  without  any  riot  or  any  vio 
lence.  He  had  found  the  way  prepared 
before  him.  The  house  had  been  pre-' 
viously  opened.  The  window  was  un-- 
barred  from  within,  and  its  fastening 
unscrewed.  There  was  a  lock  on  the 
door  of  the  chamber  in 'which  Mr.  White 
slept,  but  the  key  was  gone.  It  had  been 
taken  away  and  secreted.  The  footsteps 
of  the  murderer  were  visible,  out-doors, 
tending  toward  the  window.  The  plank 
by  which  he  entered  the  window  still  re 
mained.  The  road  he  pursued  had  been 
thus  prepared  for  him.  The  victim  was 
slain,  and  the  murderer  had  escaped. 
Every  thing  indicated  that  somebody 
within  had  co-operated  with  somebody 
without.  Every  thing  proclaimed  that 
some  of  the  inmates,  or  somebody  hav 
ing  access  to  the  house,  had  had  a  hand 
in  the  murder.  On  the  face  of  the  cir 
cumstances,  it  was  apparent,  therefore, 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


201 


that  this  was  a  premeditated,  concerted 
murder ;  that  there  had  been  a  conspiracy 
to  commit  it.  Who,  then,  were  the  con 
spirators?  If  not  now  found  out,  we 
are  still  groping  in  the  dark,  and  the 
whole  tragedy  is  still  a  mystery. 

If  the  Knapps  and  the  Crowninshields 
were  not  the  conspirators  in  this  murder, 
then  there  is  a  whole  set  of  conspirators 
not  yet  discovered.  Because,  indepen 
dent  of  the  testimony  of  Palmer  and 
Leigh  ton,  independent  of  all  disputed 
evidence,  we  know,  from  uncontro verted 
facts,  that  this  murder  was,  and  must 
have  been,  the  result  of  concert  and  co 
operation  between  two  or  more.  We 
know  it  was  not  done  without  plan  and 
deliberation;  we  see,  that  whoever  en 
tered  the  house,  to  strike  the  blow,  was 
favored  and  aided  by  some  one  who  had 
been  previously  in  the  house,  without 
suspicion,  and  who  had  prepared  the 
way.  This  is  concert,  this  is  co-operation, 
this  is  conspiracy.  If  the  Knapps  and 
the  Crowninshields,  then,  were  not  the 
conspirators,  who  were?  Joseph  Knapp 
had  a  motive  to  desire  the  death  of  Mr. 
"White,  and  that  motive  has  been  shown. 

He  was  connected  by  marriage  with 
the  family  of  Mr.  White.  His  wife  was 
the  daughter  of  Mrs.  Beckford,  who 
was  the  only  child  of  a  sister  of  the 
deceased.  The  deceased  was  more  than 
-  eighty  years  old,  and  had  no  children. 
rliis  only  heirs  were  nephews  and  nieces. 
-He  was  supposed  to  be  possessed  of  a 
very  large  fortune,  which  would  have 
descended,  by  law,  to  his  several  neph 
ews  and  nieces  in  equal  shares;  or,  if 
there  was  a  will,  then  according  to  the 
will.  But  as  he  had  but  two  branches 
of  heirs,  the  children  of  his  brother, 
Henry  White,  and  of  Mrs.  Beckford, 
each  of  these  branches,  according  to  the 
common  idea,  would  have  shared  one 
half  of  his  property. 

This  popular  idea  is  not  legally  cor 
rect.  But  it  is  common,  and  very  prob 
ably  was  entertained  by  the  parties. 
According  to  this  idea,  Mrs.  Beckford, 
on  Mr.  White's  death  without  a  will, 
would  have  been  entitled  to  one  half  of 
his  ample  fortune;  and  Joseph  Knapp 
had  married  one  of  her  three  children. 


There  was  a  will,  and  this  will  gave  the 
bulk  of  the  property  to  others ;  and  we 
learn  from  Palmer  that  one  part  of  the 
design  was  to  destroy  the  will  before  the 
murder  was  committed.  There  had  been 
a  previous  will,  and  that  previous  will 
was  known  or  believed  to  have  been 
more  favorable  than  the  other  to  the 
Beckford  family.  So  that,  by  destroy 
ing  the  last  will,  and  destroying  the  life 
of  the  testator  at  the  same  time,  either 
the  first  and  more  favorable  will  would 
be  set  up,  or  the  deceased  would  have 
no  will,  which  would  be,  as  was  sup 
posed,  ttill  more  favorable.  But  the 
conspirators  not  having  succeeded  in 
obtaining  and  destroying  the  last  will, 
though  they  accomplished  the  murder, 
that  will  being  found  in  existence  and 
safe,  and  that  will  bequeathing  the  mass 
of  the  property  to  others,  it  seemed  at 
the  time  impossible  for  Joseph  Knapp, 
as  for  any  one  else,  indeed,  but  the  prin 
cipal  devisee,  to  have  any  motive  which 
should  lead  to  the  murder.  The  key 
which  unlocks  the  whole  mystery  is  the 
knowledge  of  the  intention  of  the  con 
spirators  to  steal  the  will.  This  is  de 
rived  from  Palmer,  and  it  explains  all. 
It  solves  the  whole  marvel.  It  shows 
the  motive  which  actuated  those,  against 
whom  there  is  much  evidence,  but  who, 
without  the  knowledge  of  this  intention, 
were  not  seen  to  have  had  a  motive. 
This  intention  is  proved,  as  I  have  said, 
by  Palmer;  and  it  is  so  congruous  with 
all  the  rest  of  the  case,  it  agrees  so  well 
with  all  facts  and  circumstances,  that 
no  man  could  well  withhold  his  belief, 
though  the  facts  wrere  stated  by  a  still 
less  credible  witness.  If  one  desirous 
of  opening  a  lock  turns  over  and  tries 
a  bunch  of  keys  till  he  finds  one  that 
will  open  it,  he  naturally  supposes  he 
has  found  the  key  of  that  lock.  So,  in 
explaining  circumstances  of  evidence 
which  are  apparently  irreconcilable  or 
unaccountable,  if  a  fact  be  suggested 
which  at  once  accounts  for  all,  and  rec 
onciles  all,  by  whomsoever  it  may  be 
stated,  it  is  still  difficult  not  to  believe 
that  such  fact  is  the  true  fact  belonging 
to  the  case.  In  this  respect,  Palmer's 
testimony  is  singularly  confirmed.  If  it 


202 


THE   MURDER  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


were  false,  his  ingenuity  could  not  fur 
nish  us  such  clear  exposition  of  strange 
appearing  circumstances.  Some  truth 
not  before  known  can  alone  do  that. 

When  we  look  back,  then,  to  the 
state  of  things  immediately  on  the  dis 
covery  of  the  murder,  we  see  that  sus 
picion  would  naturally  turn  at  once,  not 
to  the  heirs  at  lawr,  but  to  those  princi 
pally  benefited  by  the  will.  They,  and 
they  alone,  would  be  supposed  or  seem 
to  have  a  direct  object  for  wishing  Mr. 
White's  life  to  be  terminated.  And, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  we  find  counsel 
now  insisting,  that,  if  no  apology,  it  is 
yet  mitigation  of  the  atrocity  of  the 
Knapps'  conduct  in  attempting  to  charge 
this  foul  murder  on  Mr.  Wrhite,  the 
nephew  and  principal  devisee,  that  pub 
lic  suspicion  was  already  so  directed! 
As  if  assassination  of  character  were 
excusable  in  proportion  as  circumstances 
may  render  it  easy.  Their  endeavors, 
when  they  knew  they  were  suspected 
themselves,  to  fix  the  charge  on  others, 
by  foul  means  and  by  falsehood,  are  fair 
and  strong  proof  of  their  own  guilt. 
But  more  of  that  hereafter. 

The  counsel  say  that  they  might  safely 
admit  that  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr. 
was  the  perpetrator  of  this  murder. 

But  how  could  they  safely  admit  that? 
If  that  were  admitted,  every  thing  else 
would  follow.  For  why  should  Richard 
Crowninshield,  Jr.  kill  Mr.  White?  He 
was  not  his  heir,  nor  his  devisee ;  nor 
was  he  his  enemy.  What  could  be  his 
motive?  If  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr. 
killed  Mr.  White,  he  did  it  at  some 
one's  procurement  who  himself  had  a 
motive.  And  who,  having  any  motive, 
is  shown  to  have  had  any  intercourse 
with  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  but 
Joseph  Knapp,  and  this  principally 
through  the  agency  of  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar?  It  is  the  infirmity,  the  dis 
tressing  difficulty  of  the  prisoner's  case, 
that  his  counsel  cannot  and  dare  not 
admit  what  they  yet  cannot  disprove, 
and  what  all  must  believe.  He  who  be 
lieves,  on  this  evidence,  that  Rich 
ard  Crowninshield,  Jr.  was  the  im 
mediate  murderer,  cannot  doubt  that 
both  the  Knapps  were  conspirators 


in  that  murder.  The  counsel,  there 
fore,  are  wrong,  I  think,  in  saying 
they  might  safely  admit  this.  The  ad 
mission  of  so  important  and  so  connect 
ed  a  factoYould  render  it  impossible  to 
contend  further  against  the  proof  of  the 
entire  conspiracy,  as  we  state  it. 

What,  then,  was  this  conspiracy?  J. 
J.  Knapp,  Jr.,  desirous  of  destroying 
the  will,  and  of  taking  the  life  of  the 
deceased,  hired  a  ruffian,  who,  with  the 
aid  of  other,  ruffians,  was  to  enter  the 
house,  and  murder  him  in  his  bed. 

As  far  back  as  January  this  conspiracy 
began.  Endicott  testifies  to  a  conver 
sation  with  J.  J.  Knapp  at  that  time,  in 
which  Knapp  told  him  that  Captain 
White  had  made  a  will,  and  given  the 
principal  part  of  his  property  to  Stephen 
White.  When  asked  how  he  knew,  he 
said,  "Black  and  white  don't  lie." 
When  asked  if  the  will  was  not  locked 
up,  he  said,  "  There  is  such  a  thing  as 
two  keys  to  the  same  lock."  And 
speaking  of  the  then  late  illness  of  Cap 
tain  White,  he  said,  that  Stephen  White 
would  not  have  been  sent  for  if  he  had 
been  there. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  as  early  as  Jan 
uary  Knapp  had  a  knowledge  of  the 
will,  and  that  he  had  access  to  it  by 
means  of  false  keys.  This  knowledge 
of  the  will,  and  an  intent  to  destroy  it, 
appear  also  from  Palmer's  testimony,  a 
fact  disclosed  to  him  by  the  other  con 
spirators.  He  says  that  he  was  informed 
of  this  by  the  Crowninshields  on  the 
2d  of  April.  But  then  it  is  said,  that 
Palmer  is  not  to  be  credited;  that  by  his 
own  confession  he  is  a  felon ;  that  he  has 
been  in  the  State  prison  in  Maine ;  and, 
above  all,  that  he  was  intimately  associ 
ated  with  these  conspirators  themselves. 
Let  us  admit  these  facts.  Let  us  admit 
him  to  be  as  bad  as  they  would  represent 
him  to  be;  still,  in  law,  he  is  a  compe 
tent  witness.  How  else  are  the  secret 
designs  of  the  wicked  to  be  proved,  but 
by  their  wicked  companions,'  to  whom 
they  have  disclosed  them?  The  govern 
ment  does  not  select  its  witnesses.  The 
conspirators  themselves  have  chosen 
Palmer.  He  was  the  confidant  of  the 
prisoners.  The  fact,  however,  does  not 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


203 


depend  on  his  testimony  alone.  It  is 
corroborated  by  other  proof;  and,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  other  circumstan 
ces,  it  lias  strong  probability.  In  regard 
to  the  testimony  of  Palmer,  generally,  it 
may  be  said  that  it  is  less  contradicted, 
in  all  parts  of  it,  either  by  himself  or 
others,  than  that  of  any  other  material 
witness,  and  that  every  thing  he  has  told 
is  corroborated  by  other  evidence,  so  far 
as  it  is  susceptible  of  confirmation.  An 
attempt  has  been  made  to  impair  his 
testimony,  as  to  his  being  at  the  Half 
way  House  on  the  night  of  the  murder; 
you  have  seen  with  what  success.  Mr. 
13 abb  is  called  to  contradict  him.  You 
have  seen  how  little  he  knows,  and  even 
that  not  certainly;  for  he  himself  is 
proved  to  have  been  in  an  error  by  sup 
posing  Palmer  to  have  been  at  the  Half 
way  House  on  the  evening  of  the  9th  of 
April.  At  that  time  he  is  proved  to 
have  been  at  Dust-in 's,  in  Danvers.  If, 
then,  Palmer,  bad  as  he  is,  has  disclosed 
the  secrets  of  the  conspiracy,  and  has 
told  the  truth,  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  believed.  Truth  is  truth, 
come  whence  it  may. 

The  facts  show  that  this  murder  had 
been  long  in  agitation;  that  it  was  not 
a  new  proposition  on  the  2d  of  April; 
that  it  had  been  contemplated  for  five  or 
six  weeks.  Richard  Crowninshield  was 
at  Wen  ham  in  the  latter  part  of  March, 
as  testified  by  Starrett.  Frank  Knapp 
was  at  Danvers  in  the  latter  part  of 
February,  as  testified  by  Allen.  Rich 
ard  Crowninshield  inquired  whether 
Captain  Knapp  was  about  home,  when 
at  Wenham.  The  probability  is,  that 
they  would  open  the  case  to  Palmer 
as  a  new  project.  There  are  other 
circumstances  that  show  it  to  have 
been  some  weeks  in  agitation.  Palm 
er's  testimony  as  to  the  transaction 
on  the  2d  of  April  is  corroborated  by 
Allen,  and  by  Osborn's  books.  He 
says  that  Frank  Knapp  came  there  in 
the  afternoon,  and  again  in  the  even 
ing.  80  the  book  shows.  He  says 
that  Captain  White  had  gone  out  to  his 
farm  on  that  day.  So  others  prove. 
How  could  this  fact,  or  these  facts,  have 
been  known  to  Palmer,  unless  Frank 


Knapp  had  brought  the  knowledge? 
And  was  it  not  the  special  object  of  this 
visit  to  give  information  of  this  fact, 
that  they  might  meet  him  and  execute 
their  purpose  on  his  return  from  his 
farm  ?  The  letter  of  Palmer,  written  at 
Belfast,  bears  intrinsic  marks  of  genu 
ineness.  It  was  mailed  at  Belfast,  May 
13th.  It  states  facts  that  he  could  not 
have  known,  unless  his  testimony  be 
true.  This  letter  was  not  an  after 
thought;  it  is  a  genuine  narrative.  In 
fact,  it  says,  "  I  know  the  business  your 
brother  Frank  was  transacting  on  the 
2d  of  April."  How  could  he  have  pos 
sibly  known  this,  unless  he  had  been 
there  ?  The  "  one  thousand  dollars  that 
was  to  be  paid," — where  could  he  have 
obtained  this  knowledge?  The  testi 
mony  of  Endicott,  of  Palmer,  and  these 
facts,  are  to  be  taken  together;  and 
they  most  clearly  show  that  the  death 
of  Captain  White  was  caused  by  some 
body  interested  in  putting  an  end  to 
his  life. 

As  to  the  testimony  of  Leighton,  as 
far  as  manner  of  testifying  goes,  he  is  a 
bad  witness ;  but  it  does  not  follow  from 
this  that  he  is  not  to  be  believed.  There 
are  some  strange  things  about  him.  It 
is  strange,  that  he  should  make  up  a  story 
against  Captain  Knapp,  the  person  with 
whom  he  lived ;  that  he  never  volunta 
rily  told  any  thing :  all  that  he  has  said 
was  screwed  out  of  him.  But  the  story 
could  not  have  been  invented  by  him; 
his  character  for  truth  is  unimpeached ; 
and  he  intimated  to  another  witness, 
soon  after  the  murder  happened,  that 
he  knew  something  he  should  not  tell. 
There  is  not  the  least  contradiction  in 
his  testimony,  though  he  gives  a  poor 
account  of  withholding  it.  He  says  that 
he  was  extremely  bothered  by  those  who 
questioned  him.  In  the  main  story  that 
he  relates,  he  is  entirely  consistent  with 
himself.  Some  things  are  for  him,  and 
some  against  him.  Examine  the  in 
trinsic  probability  of  what  he  says.  See 
if  some  allowance  is  not  to  be  made 
for  him,  on  account  of  his  ignorance  of 
things  of  this  kind.  It  is  said  to  be  ex 
traordinary,  that  he  should  have  heard 
just  so  much  of  the  conversation,  aud 


204 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


no  more ;  that  he  should  have  heard  just 
what  was  necessary  to  be  proved,  and 
nothing  else.  Admit  that  this  is  ex 
traordinary;  still,  this  does  not  prove  it 
untrue.  It  is  extraordinary  that  you 
twelve  gentlemen  should  be  called  upon, 
out  of  all  the  men  in  the  county,  to 
decide  this  case;  no  one  could  have 
foretold  this  three  weeks  since.  It  is 
extraordinary  that  the  first  clew  to  this 
conspiracy  should  have  been  derived 
from  information  given  by  the  father  of 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  And  in  every 
case  that  comes  to  trial  there  are  many 
things  extraordinary.  The  murder  itself 
is  a  most  extraordinary  one ;  but  still  we 
do  not  doubt  its  reality. 

It  is  argued,  that  this  conversation 
between  Joseph  and  Frank  could  not 
have  been  as  Leigh  ton  has  testified,  be 
cause  they  had  been  together  for  several 
hours  before;  this  subject  must  have 
been  uppermost  in  their  minds,  whereas 
this  appears  to  have  been  the  commence 
ment  of  their  conversation  upon  it.  Now 
this  depends  altogether  upon  the  tone 
and  manner  of  the  expression ;  upon  the 
particular  word  in  the  sentence  which 
was  emphatically  spoken.  If  he  had 
said,  "  When  did  you  see  Dick,  Frank'? '.' 
this  would  not  seem  to  be  the  beginning 
of  the  conversation.  With  what  em 
phasis  it  was  uttered,  it  is  not  possible 
to  learn;  and  therefore  nothing  can  be 
made  of  this  argument.  If  this  boy's 
testimony  stood  alone,  it  should  be  re 
ceived  with  caution.  And  the  same  may 
be  said  of  the  testimony  of  Palmer. 
But  they  do  not  stand  alone.  They  fur 
nish  a  clew  to  numerous  other  circum 
stances,  which,  when  known,  mutually 
confirm  what  would  have  been  received 
with  caution  without  such  corrobora- 
tion.  How  could  Leighton  have  made  up 
this  conversation?  "  When  did  you  see 
Dick?"  "I  saw  him  this  morning." 
"  When  is  he  going  to  kill  the  old 
man?"  "  I  don't  know."  "  Tell  him, 
if  he  don't  do  it  soon,  I  won't  pay 
him."  Here  is  a  vast  amount  in  few 
words.  Had  he  wit  enough  to  invent 
this?  There  is  nothing  so  powerful  as 
truth;  and  often  nothing  so  strange. 
It  is  not  even  suggested  that  the  story 


was  made  for  him.  There  is  noth 
ing  so  extraordinary  in  the  whole  mat 
ter,  as  it  would  have  been  for  this 
ignorant  country  boy  to  invent  this 
story.  « 

The  acts  of  the  parties  themselves  fur 
nish  strong  presumption  of  their  guilt. 
What  was  done  on  the  receipt  of  the 
letter  from  Maine?  This  letter  was 
signed  by  Charles  Grant,  Jr.,  a  person 
not  known  to  either  of  the  Knapps,  nor 
was  it  known  to  them  that  any  other 
person  beside  the  Crowninshields  knew 
of  the  conspiracy.  This  letter,  by  the 
accidental  omission  of  the  word  Jr.,  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  father,  when  in 
tended  for  the  son.  The  father  carried 
it  to  Wenham,  where  both  the  sons  were. 
They  both  read  it.  Fix  your  eye  stead 
ily  on  this  part  of  the  circumstantial  stuff 
which  is  in  the  case,  and  see  what  can 
be  made  of  it.  This  was  shown  to  the 
twro  brothers  on  Saturday,  the  15th  of 
May.  Neither  of  them  knew  Palmer. 
And  if  they  had  known  him,  they  could 
not  have  known  him  to  have  been  the 
writer  of  this  letter.  It  was  mysterious 
to  them  how  any  one  at  Belfast  could 
have  had  knowledge  of  this  affair.  Their 
conscious  guilt  prevented  due  circum 
spection.  They  did  not  see  the  bearing 
of  its  publication.  They  advised  their 
father  to  carry  it  to  the  Committee  of 
Vigilance,  and  it  wras  so  carried.  On 
the  Sunday  following,  Joseph  began  to 
think  there  might  be  something  in  it. 
Perhaps,  in  the  mean  time,  he  had  seen 
one  of  the  Crowninshields.  He  was 
apprehensive  that  they  might  be  sus 
pected;  he  was  anxious  to  turn  atten 
tion  from  their  family.  WThat  course 
did  he  adopt  to  effect  this?  He  ad 
dressed  one  letter,  with  a  false  name, 
to  Mr.  White,  and  another  to  the  Com 
mittee;  and  to  complete  the  climax  of 
his  folly,  he  signed  the  letter  addressed 
to  the  Committee,  "Grant,"  the  same 
name  as  that  which  was  signed  to  the 
letter  received  from  Belfast.  '  It  was  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  Committee,  that 
no  person  but  the  Knapps  had  seen  this 
letter  from  Belfast;  and  that  no  other 
person  knew  its  signature.  It  therefore 
must  have  been  irresistibly  plain  to  them 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


205 


that  one  of  the  Knapps  was  the  writer 
of  the  letter  received  by  the  Commit 
tee,  charging  the  murder  on  Mr.  White. 
Add  to  this  the  fact  of  its  having  been 
dated  at  Lynn,  and  mailed  at  Salem 
four  days  after  it  was  dated,  and  who 
could  doubt  respecting  it?  Have  you 
ever  read  or  known  of  folly  equal  to 
this?  Can  you  conceive  of  crime  more 
odious  and  abominable?  Merely  to  ex 
plain  the  apparent  mysteries  of  the  letter 
from  Palmer,  they  excite  the  basest  sus 
picions  against  a  man,  whom,  if  they 
were  innocent,  they  had  no  reason  to 
believe  guilty;  and  whom,  if  they  were 
guilty,  -they  most  certainly  knew  to  be 
innocent.  Could  they  have  adopted  a 
more  direct  method  of  exposing  their 
own  infamy?  The  letter  to  the  Com 
mittee  has  intrinsic  marks  of  a  knowl 
edge  of  this  transaction.  It  tells  the 
time  and  the  manner  in  which  the  murder 
was  committed.  Every  line  speaks  the 
writer's  condemnation.  In  attempting 
to  divert  attention  from  his  family,  and 
to  charge  the  guilt  upon  another,  he  in 
delibly  fixes  it  upon  himself. 

Joseph  Knapp  requested  Allen  to  put 
these  letters  into  the  post-office,  because, 
said  he,  "  I  wish  to  nip  this  silly  affair 
in  the  bud."  If  this  were  not  the  order 
of  an  overruling  Providence,  I  should 
say  that  it  was  the  silliest  piece  of  folly 
that  was  ever  practised.  Mark  the  des 
tiny  of  crime.  It  is  ever  obliged  to  re 
sort  to  such  subterfuges ;  it  trembles  in 
the  broad  light ;  it  betrays  itself  in  seek 
ing  concealment.  He  alone  walks  safely 
who  walks  uprightly.  Who  for  a  mo 
ment  can  read  these  letters  and  doubt  of 
Joseph  Knapp's  guilt?  The  constitu 
tion  of  nature  is  made  to  inform  against 
him.  There  is  no  corner  dark  enough 
to  conceal  him.  There  is  no  turnpike- 
road  broad  enough  or  smooth  enough 
for  a  man  so  guilty  to  walk  in  without 
Stumbling.  Every  step  proclaims  his 
secret  to  every  passenger.  His  own  acts 
come  out  to  fix  his  guilt.  In  attempting 
to  charge  another  with  his  own  crime, 
he  writes  his  own  confession.  To  do 
away  the  effect  of  Palmer's  letter,  signed 
Grant,  he  writes  a  letter  himself  and 
affixes  to  it  the  name  of  Grant.  He 


writes  in  a  disguised  hand;  but  how 
could  it  happen  that  the  same  Grant 
should  be  in  Salem  that  was  at  Belfast? 
This  has  brought  the  whole  thing  out. 
Evidently  he  did  it,  because  he  has 
adopted  the  same  style.  Evidently  he 
did  it,  because  he  speaks  of  the  price  of 
blood,  and  of  other  circumstances  con 
nected  with  the  murder,  that  no  one  but 
a  conspirator  could  have  known. 

Palmer  says  he  made  a  visit  to  the 
Crowninshields,  on  the  9th  of  April. 
George  then  asked  him  whether  he  had 
heard  of  the  murder.  Richard  inquired 
whether  he  had  heard  the  music  at  Salem. 
They  said  that  they  were  suspected,  that 
a  committee  had  been  appointed  to  search 
houses ;  and  that  they  had  melted  up  the 
dagger,  the  day  after  the  murder,  be 
cause  it  would  be  a  suspicious  circum 
stance  to  have  it  found  in  their  possession. 
Xow  this  committee  was  not  appointed, 
in  fact,  until  Friday  evening.  But  this 
proves  nothing  against  Palmer;  it  does 
not  prove  that  George  did  not  tell  him 
so;  it  only  proves  that  he  gave  a  false 
reason  for  a  fact.  They  had  heard  that 
they  were  suspected;  how  could  they 
have  heard  this,  unless  it  were  from  the 
whisperings  of  their  own  consciences? 
Surely  this  rumor  was  not  then  pub 
lic. 

About  the  27th  of  April,  another  at 
tempt  was  made  by  the  Knapps  to  give 
a  direction  to  public  suspicion.  They  re 
ported  themselves  to  have  been  robbed, 
in  passing  from  Salem  to  Wenham,  near 
Wenham  Pond.  They  came  to  Salem 
and  stated  the  particulars  of  the  adven 
ture.  They  described  persons,  their 
dress,  size,  and  appearance,  who  had 
been  suspected  of  the  murder.  They 
would  have  it  understood  that  the  com 
munity  was  infested  by  a  band  of  ruf 
fians,  and  that  they  themselves  were  the 
particular  objects  of  their  vengeance. 
Xow  this  turns  out  to  be  all  fictitious, 
all  false.  Can  you  conceive  of  any  thing 
more  enormous,  any  wickedness  greater, 
than  the  circulation  of  such  reports? 
than  the  allegation  of  crimes,  if  com 
mitted,  capital?  If  no  such  crime  had 
been  committed,  then  it  reacts  with 
double  force  upon  themselves,  and  goes 


206 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


very  far  to  show  their  guilt.  How  did 
they  conduct  themselves  on  this  occa 
sion?  Did  they  make  hue  and  cry? 
Did  they  give  information  that  they 
had  been  assaulted  that  night  at  Wen- 
ham?  No  such  thing.  They  rested 
quietly  that  night;  they  waited  to  be 
called  on  for  the  particulars  of  their  ad 
venture  ;  they  made  no  attempt  to  arrest 
the  offenders;  this  was  not  their  object. 
They  were  content  to  fill  the  thousand 
mouths  of  rumor,  to  spread  abroad  false 
reports,  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
public  from  themselves;  for  they 
thought  every  man  suspected  them,  be 
cause  they  knew  they  ought  to  be  sus 
pected. 

The  manner  in  which  the  compensa 
tion  for  this  murder  was  paid  is  a  cir 
cumstance  worthy  of  consideration.  By 
examining  the  facts  and  dates,  it  will 
satisfactorily  appear  that  Joseph  Knapp 
paid  a  sum  of  money  to  Richard  Crown- 
inshield,  in  five-franc  pieces,  on  the  24th 
of  April.  On  the  21st  of  April,  Joseph 
Knapp  received  five  hundred  five-franc 
pieces,  as  the  proceeds  of  an  adventure 
at  sea.  The  remainder  of  this  species 
of  currency  that  came  home  in  the  ves 
sel  was  deposited  in  a  bank  at  Salem. 
On  Saturday,  the  24th  of  April,  Frank 
and  Richard  rode  to  Wenham.  They 
were  there  with  Joseph  an  hour  or 
more,  and  appeared  to  be  negotiating 
private  business.  Richard  continued 
in  the  chaise  ;  Joseph  came  to  the 
chaise  and  conversed  with  him.  These 
facts  are  proved  by  Hart  and  Leigh- 
ton,  and  by  Osborn's  books.  On  Sat 
urday  evening,  about  this  time,  Richard 
Crowninshield  is  proved,  by  Lummus,  to 
have  been  at  Wenham,  with  another 
person  whose  appearance  corresponds 
with  Frank's.  Can  any  one  doubt  this 
being  the  same  evening?  What  had 
Richard  Crowninshield  to  do  at  Wen- 
ham,  with  .Joseph,  unless  it  were  this 
business?  He  was  there  before  the  mur 
der  ;  he  was  there  after  the  murder ;  he 
was  there  clandestinely,  unwilling  to  be 
seen.  If  it  were  not  upon  this  business, 
let  it  be  told  what  it  was  for.  Joseph 
Knapp  could  explain  it;  Frank  Knapp 
might  explain  it.  But  they  do  not  ex 


plain  it;  and  the  inference  is  against 
them. 

Immediately  after  this,  Richard  passes 
five-franc  pieces;  on  the  same  evening, 
one  to  Uummus,  five  to  Palmer;  and 
near  this  time  George  passes  three  or 
four  in  Salem.  Here  are  nine  of  these 
pieces  passed  by  them  in  four  days ;  this 
is  extraordinary.  It  is  an  unusual  cur 
rency  ;  in  ordinary  business,  few  men 
would  pass  nine  such  pieces  in  the 
course  of  a  year.  If  they  were  not  re 
ceived  in  thfs  way,  why  not  explain  how 
they  came  by  them?  Money  was  not  so 
flush  in  their  pockets  that  they  could  not 
tell  whence  it  came,  if  it  honestly  came 
there.  It  is  extremely  important  to  them 
to  explain  whence  this  money  came,  and 
they  would  do  it  if  they  could.  If,  then, 
the  price  of  blood  was  paid  at  this  time, 
in  the  presence  and  with  the  knowledge 
of  this  defendant,  does  not  this  prove 
him  to  have  been  connected  with  this 
conspiracy? 

Observe,  also,  the  effect  on  the  mind 
of  Richard  of  Palmer's  being  arrested 
and  committed  to  prison;  the  various 
efforts  he  makes  to  discover  the  fact; 
the  lowering,  through  the  crevices  of 
the  rock,  the  pencil  and  paper  for  him 
to  write  upon;  the  sending  two  lines  of 
poetry,  with  the  request  that  he  would 
return  the  corresponding  lines ;  the  shrill 
and  peculiar  whistle  ;  the  inimitable 
exclamations  of  "  Palmer!  Palmer! 
Palmer!  "  All  these  things  prove  how 
great  was  his  alarm;  they  corroborate 
Palmer's  story,  and  tend  to  establish 
the  conspiracy. 

Joseph  Knapp  had  a  part  to  act  in 
this  matter.  He  must  have  opened  the 
window,  and  secreted  the  key;  he  had 
free  access  to  every  part  of  the  house ; 
he  was  accustomed  to  visit  there;  he 
went  in  and  out  at  his  pleasure;  he 
could  do  this  without  being  suspected. 
He  is  proved  to  have  been  there  the 
Saturday  preceding. 

If  all  these  things,  taken'  in  connec 
tion,  do  not  prove  that  Captain  White 
was  murdered  in  pursuance  of  a  con 
spiracy,  then  the  case  is  at  an  end. 

Savary's  testimony  is  wholly  unex 
pected.  He  was  called  for  a  different 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


207 


purpose.  When  asked  who  the  person 
was  that  he  saw  come  out  of  Captain 
White's  yard  between  three  and  four 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  he  answered, 
Frank  Knapp.  It  is  not  clear  that  this 
is  not  true.  There  may  be  many  cir 
cumstances  of  importance  connected 
with  this,  though  we  believe  the  mur 
der  to  have  been  committed  between 
ten  and  eleven  o'clock.  The  letter  to 
Dr.  Barstow  states  it  to  have  been  done 
about  eleven  o'clock;  it  states  it  to  have 
been  done  with  a  blow  on  the  head,  from 
a  weapon  loaded  with  lead.  Here  is  too 
great  a  correspondence  with  the  reality 
not  to  have  some  meaning  in  it.  Dr. 
Peirson  was  always  of  the  opinion,  that 
the  two  classes  of  wounds  were  made 
with  different  instruments,  and  by  dif 
ferent  hands.  It  is  possible  that  one 
class  was  inflicted  at  one  time,  and  the 
other  at  another.  It  is  possible  that  on 
the  last  visit  the  pulse  might  not  have 
entirely  ceased  to  beat,  and  then  the 
finishing  stroke  was  given.  It  is  said, 
that,  when  the  body  was  discovered, 
some  of  the  wounds  wept,  while  the 
others  did  not.  They  may  have  been 
inflicted  from  mere  wantonness.  It  was 
known  that  Captain  AVhite  was  accus 
tomed  to  keep  specie  by  him  in  his  cham 
ber  ;  this  perhaps  may  explain  the  last 
visit.  It  is  proved,  that  this  defendant 
was  in  the  habit  of  retiring  to  bed,  and 
leaving  it  afterwards,  without  the  knowl 
edge  of  his  family;  perhaps  he  did  so 
on  this  occasion.  We  see  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  fact;  and  it  does  not  shake 
our  belief  that  the  murder  was  commit 
ted  early  in  the  night. 

What  are  the  probabilities  as  to  the 
time  of  the  murder?  Mr.  White  was 
an  aged  man ;  he  usually  retired  to  bed 
at  about  half-past  nine.  He  slept 
soundest  in  the  early  part  of  the  night ; 
usually  awoke  in  the  middle  and  latter 
part ;  and  his  habits  were  perfectly  well 
known.  AVhen  would  persons,  with  a 
knowledge  of  these  facts,  be  most  likely 
to  approach  him?  Most  certainly,  in  the 
first  hour  of  his  sleep.  This  would  be 
the  safest  time.  If  seen  then  going  to 
or  from  the  house,  the  appearance  would 
be  least  suspicious.  The  earlier  hour 


would  then  have  been  most  probably 
selected. 

Gentlemen,  I  shall  dwell  no  longer  on 
the  evidence  which  tends  to  prove  that 
there  was  a  conspiracy,  and  that  the 
prisoner  was  a  conspirator.  All  the 
circumstances  concur  to  make  out  this 
point.  Xot  only  Palmer  swears  to  it,  in 
effect,  and  Leighton,  but  Allen  mainly 
supports  Palmer,  and '  Osborn's  books 
lend  confirmation,  so  far  as  possible, 
from  such  a  source.  Palmer  is  contra 
dicted  in  nothing,  either  by  any  other 
witness,  or  any  proved  circumstance  or 
occurrence.  Whatever  could  be  ex 
pected  to  support  him  does  support 
him.  All  the  evidence  clearly  mani 
fests,  I  think,  that  there  was  a  conspir 
acy;  that  it  originated  with  Joseph 
Knapp;  that  defendant  became  a  party 
to  it,  and  was  one  of  its  conductors, 
from  first  to  last.  One  of  the  most 
powerful  circumstances  is  Palmer's  let 
ter  from  Belfast.  The  amount  of  this 
is  a  direct  charge  on  the  Kiiapps  of  the 
authorship  of  this  murder.  How  did 
they  treat  this  charge;  like  honest  men, 
or  like  guilty  men?  We  have  seen  how 
it  was  treated.  Joseph  Knapp  fabricat 
ed  letters,  charging  another  person,  and 
caused  them  to  be  put  into  the  post- 
oftice. 

I  shall  now  proceed  on  the  supposi 
tion,  that  it  is  proved  that  there  was  a 
conspiracy  to  murder  Mr.  White,  and 
that  the  prisoner  was  party  to  it. 

The  second  and  the  material  inquiry 
is,  Was  the  prisoner  present  at  the  mur 
der,  aiding  and  abetting  therein? 

This  leads  to  the  legal  question  in  the 
case.  What  does  the  law  mean,  when 
it  says,  that,  in  order  to  charge  him  as  a 
principal,  "he  must  be  present  aiding 
and  abetting  in  the  murder  "? 

In  the  language  of  the  late  Chief  Jus 
tice,  "  It  is  not  required  that  the  abet 
tor  shall  be  actually  upon  the  spot  when 
the  murder  is  committed,  or  even  in 
sight  of  the  more  immediate  perpetra 
tor  of  the  victim,  to  make  him  a  princi 
pal.  If  he  be  at  a  distance,  co-operat 
ing  in  the  act,  by  watching  to  prevent 
relief,  or  to  give  an  alarm,  or  to  assist 
his  confederate  in  escape,  having  knowl- 


208 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


edge  of  the  purpose  and  object  of  the 
assassin,  this  in  the  eye  of  the  law  is 
being  present,  aiding  and  abetting,  so 
as  to  make  him  a  principal  in  the  mur 
der." 

"  If  he  be  at  a  distance  co-operating." 
This  is  not  a  distance  to  be  measured 
by  feet  or  rods ;  if  the  intent  to  lend  aid 
combine  with  a  knowledge  that  the  mur 
der  is  to  be  committed,  and  the  person 
so  intending  be  so  situate  that  he  can  by 
any  possibility  lend  this  aid  in  any  man 
ner,  then  he  is  present  in  legal  contem 
plation.  He  need  not  lend  any  actual 
aid ;  to  be  ready  to  assist  is  assisting. 

There  are  two  sorts  of  murder;  the 
distinction  between  them  it  is  of  essen 
tial  importance  to  bear  in  mind :  1.  Mur 
der  in  an  aifray,  or  upon  sudden  and 
unexpected  provocation.  2.  Murder  se 
cretly,  with  a  deliberate,  predetermined 
intention  to  commit  the  crime.  Under 
the  first  class,  the  question  usually  is, 
whether  the  offence  be  murder  or  man 
slaughter,  in  the  person  who  commits 
the  deed.  Under  the  second  class,  it  is 
often  a  question  whether  others  than  he 
who  actually  did  the  deed  were  present, 
aiding  and  assisting  therein.  Offences 
of  this  kind  ordinarily  happen  when 
there  is  nobody  present  except  those  who 
go  on  the  same  design.  If  a  riot  should 
happen  in  the  court-house,  and  one 
should  kill  another,  this  may  be  mur 
der,  or  it  may  not,  according  to  the  in 
tention  with  which  it  was  done ;  which 
is  always  matter  of  fact,  to  be  collected 
from  the  circumstances  at  the  time. 
But  in  secret  murders,  premeditated  and 
determined  on,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
the  murderous  intention;  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  if  a  person  be  present,  know 
ing  a  murder  is  to  be  done,  of  his  con 
curring  in  the  act.  His  being  there  is  a 
proof  of  his  intent  to  aid  and  abet;  else, 
why  is  he  there? 

It  has  been  contended,  that  proof 
must  be  given  that  the  person  accused 
did  actually  afford  aid,  did  lend  a  hand 
in  the  murder  itself;  and  without  this 
proof,  although  he  may  be  near  by,  he 
may  be  presumed  to  be  there  for  an  in 
nocent  purpose;  he  may  have  crept  si 
lently  there  to  hear  the  news,  or  from 


mere  curiosity  to  see  what  was  going 
on.1  Preposterous,  absurd!  Such  an 
idea  shocks  all  common  sense.  A  man 
is  found  to  be  a  conspirator  to  commit  a 
murder ;Jie  has  planned  it;  he  has  as 
sisted  in  arranging  the  time,  the  place, 
and  the  means ;  and  he  is  found  in  the 
place,  and  at  the  time,  and  yet  it  is  sug 
gested  that  he  might  have  been  there, 
not  for  co-operation  and  concurrence, 
but  from  curiosity !  Such  an  argument 
deserves  no  answer.  It  would  be  diffi 
cult  to  give  it  one,  in  decorous  terms. 
Is  it  not  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  a 
man  seeks  to  accomplish  his  own  pur 
poses'?  When  he  has  planned  a  mur 
der,  and  is  present-at  its  execution,  is  he 
there  to  forward  or  to  thwart  his  own 
design?  is  he  there  to  assist,  or  there  to 
prevent?  But  "Curiosity"!  He  may 
be  there  from  mere  "  curiosity  "  !  Curi 
osity  to  witness  the  success  of  the  execu 
tion  of  his  own  plan  of  murder!  The 
very  walls  of  a  court-house  ought  not 
to  stand,  the  ploughshare  should  run 
through  the  ground  it  stands  on,  where 
such  an  argument  could  find  toleration.2 
It  is  not  necessary  that  the  abettor 
should  actually  lend  a  hand,  that  he 
should  take  a  part  in  the  act  itself ;  if  he 
be  present  ready  to  assist,  that  is  assist 
ing.  Some  of  the  doctrines  advanced 
would  acquit  the  defendant,  though  he 
had  gone  to  the  bedchamber  of  the  de 
ceased,  though  he  had  been  standing  by 
when  the  assassin  gave  the  blow.  This 
is  the  argument  we  have  heard  to-day. 

The  court  here  said,  they  did  not  so  under 
stand  the  argument  of  the  counsel  for  de 
fendant.  Mr.  Dexter  said,  "  The  intent  and 
power  alone  must  co-operate." 

]STo  doubt  the  law  is,  that  being  ready 
to  assist  is  assisting,  if  the  party  has  the 
power  to  assist,  in  case  of  need.  It  is  so 
stated  by  Foster,  who  is  a  high  author 
ity.  "  If  A  happeneth  to  be  present  at 
a  murder,  for  instance,  and  taketh  no 
part  in  it,  nor  endeavoreth  to  prevent 
it,  nor  apprehendeth  the  murderer,  nor 

1  This   seems  to  have  been  actually  the  case 
as  regards  J.  F.  Knapp. 

2  And  yet  this  argument,  so  absurd  in  Mr. 
Webster's  opinion,  was  based  on  the  exact  fact. 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


209 


levyeth  hue  and  cry  after  him,  this 
strange  behavior  of  his,  though  highly 
criminal,  will  not  of  itself  render  him 
either  principal  or  accessory."  "  But  if 
a  fact  amounting  to  murder  should  be 
committed  in  prosecution  of  some  un 
lawful  purpose,  though  it  were  but  a 
bare  trespass,  to  which  A  in  the  case 
last  stated  had  consented,  and  he  had 
gone  in  order  to  give  assistance,  if  need 
were,  for  carrying  it  into  execution,  this 
would  have  amounted  to  murder  in  him, 
and  in  every  person  present  and  joining 
with  him."  "If  the  fact  was  com 
mitted  in  prosecution  of  the  original 
purpose  which  was  unlawful,  the  whole 
party  will  be  involved  in  the  guilt  of 
him  who  gave  the  blow.  For  in  combi 
nations  of  this  kind,  the  mortal  stroke, 
though  given  by  one  of  the  party,  is 
considered  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  of 
sound  reason  too,  as  given  by  every  in 
dividual  present  and  abetting.  The  per 
son  actually  giving  the  stroke  is  no  more 
than  the  hand  or  instrument  by  which 
the  others  strike. ' '  The  author,  in  speak 
ing  of  being  present,  means  actual  pres 
ence;  not  actual  in  opposition  to  con 
structive,  for  the  law  knows  no  such 
distinction.  There  is  but  one  presence, 
and  this  is  the  situation  from  which  aid, 
or  supposed  aid,  may  be  rendered.  The 
law  does  not  say  where  the  person  is  to 
go,  or  how  near  he  is  to  go,  but  that  he 
must  be  where  he  may  give  assistance, 
or  where  the  perpetrator  may  believe 
that  he  may  be  assisted  by  him.  Sup 
pose  that  he  is  acquainted  with  the 
design  of  the  murderer,  and  has  a 
knowledge  of  the  time  when  it  is  to  be 
carried  into  effect,  and  goes  out  with  a 
view  to  render  assistance,  if  need  be; 
why,  then,  even  though  the  murderer 
does  not  know  of  this,  the  person  so 
going  out  will  be  an  abettor  in  the 
murder. 

It  is  contended  that  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  could  not  be  a  principal,  he  being 
in  Brown  Street,  because  he  could  not 
there  render  assistance;  and  you  are 
called  upon  to  determine  this  case,  ac 
cording  as  you  may  be  of  opinion  whether 
Brown  Street  was,  or  was  not,  a  suit 
able,  convenient,  well-chosen  place  to 


aid  in  this  murder.  This  is  not  the  true 
question.  The  inquiry  is  not  whether 
you  would  have  selected  this  place  in 
preference  to  all  others,  or  whether  you 
would  have  selected  it  at  all.  If  the  par 
ties  chose  it,  why  should  we  doubt  about 
it?  How  do  we  know  the  use  they  in 
tended  to  make  of  it,  or  the  kind  of  aid 
that  he  was  to  afford  by  being  there? 
The  question  for  you  to  consider  is,  Did 
the  defendant  go  into  Brown  Street  in 
aid  of  this  murder?  Did  he  go  there 
by  agreement,  by  appointment  with  the 
perpetrator?1  If  so,  every  thing  else 
follows.  The  main  thing,  indeed  the 
only  thing,  is  to  inquire  whether  he  was 
in  Brown  Street  by  appointment  with 
Richard  Crowninshield.  It  might  be 
to  keep  general  watch;  to  observe  the 
lights,  and  advise  as  to  time  of  access; 
to  meet  the  murderer  on  his  return,  to 
advise  him  as  to  his  escape ;  to  examine 
his  clothes,  to  see  if  any  marks  of  blood 
were  upon  them ;  to  furnish  exchange  of 
clothes,  or  new  disguise,  if  necessary;  to 
tell  him  through  what  streets  he  could 
safely  retreat,  or  whether  he  could  de 
posit  the  club  in  the  place  designed;  or 
it  might  be  without  any  distinct  object, 
but  merely  to  afford  that  encourage 
ment  which  would  proceed  from  Rich 
ard  Crowninshield 's  consciousness  that 
he  was  near.  It  ivS  of  no  consequence 
whether,  in  your  opinion,  the  place  was 
well  chosen  or  not,  to  afford  aid;  if  it 
was  so  chosen,  if  it  was  by  appointment 
that  he  was  there,  it  is  enough.  Sup 
pose  Richard  Crowninshield,  when  ap 
plied  to  to  commit  the  murder,  had  said, 
"  I  won't  do  it  unless  there  can  be  some 
one  near  by  to  favor  my  escape ;  I  won't 
go  unless  you  will  stay  in  Brown  Street. ' ' 
Upon  the  gentleman's  argument,  he 
would  not  be  an  aider  and  abettor  in 
the  murder,  because  the  place  was  not 
well  chosen ;  though  it  is  apparent  that 
the  being  in  the  place  chosen  was  a  con 
dition,  without  which  the  murder  would 
never  have  happened. 

You  are  to  consider  the  defendant  as 

one  in  the  league,  in  the  combination  to 

commit  the  murder.    If  he  was  there  by 

appointment  with  the  perpetrator,  he  is 

i  He  did  not. 


210 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


an  abettor.  The  concurrence  of  the  per 
petrator  in  his  being  there  is  proved  by 
the  previous  evidence  of  the  conspiracy. 
If  Richard  Crowninshield,  for  any  pur 
pose  whatsoever,  made  it  a  condition  of 
the  agreement,  that  Frank  Knapp  should 
stand  as  backer,  then  Frank  Knapp  was 
an  aider  and  abettor;  no  matter  what 
the  aid  was,  or  what  sort  it  was,  or  de 
gree,  be  it  ever  so  little;  even  if  it  were 
to  judge  of  the  hour  when  it  was  best 
to  go,  or  to  see  when  the  lights  were 
extinguished,  or  to  give  an  alarm  if 
any  one  approached.  Who  better  cal 
culated  to  judge  of  these  things  than 
the  murderer  himself  ?  and  if  he  so  de 
termined  them,  that  is  sufficient. 

Now  as  to  the  facts.  Frank  Knapp 
knew  that  the  murder  was  that  night  to 
be  committed;  he  was  one  of  the  con 
spirators,  he  knew  the  object,  he  knew 
the  time.  He  had  that  day  been  to 
Wenham  to  see  Joseph,  and  probably 
to  Danvers  to  see  Richard  Crownin 
shield,  for  he  kept  his  motions  secret. 
He  had  that  day  hired  a  horse  and  chaise 
of  Osborn,  and  attempted  to  conceal  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  used ;  he  had 
intentionally  left  the  place  and  the  price 
blank  on  Osborn's  books.  He  went  to 
Wenham  by  the  way  of  Danvers;  he 
had  been  told  the  week  before  to  hasten 
Dick;  he  had  seen  the  Crowninshields 
several  times  within  a  few  days ;  he  had 
a  saddle-horse  the  Saturday  night  be 
fore;  he  had  seen  Mrs.  Beckford  at 
Wenham,  and  knew  she  would  not  re 
turn  that  night.  She  had  not  been 
away  before  for  six  weeks,  and  prob 
ably  would  not  soon  be  again.  He  had 
just  come  from  Wenham.  Every  day, 
for  the  week  previous,  he  had  visited 
one  or  another  of  these  conspirators, 
save  Sunday,  and  then  probably  he  saw 
them  in  town.  When  he  saw  Joseph  on 
the  6th,  Joseph  had  prepared  the  house, 
and  would  naturally  tell  him  of  it;  there 
were  constant  communications  between 
them;  daily  and  nightly  visitation;  too 
much  knowledge  of  these  parties  and 
this  transaction,  to  leave  a  particle  of 
doubt  on  the  mind  of  any  one,  that 
Frank  Knapp  knew  the  murder  was  to 
be  committed  this  night.  The  hour  was 


come,  and  he  knew  it;  if  so,  and  he  was 
in  Brown  Street,  without  explaining  why 
he  was  there,  can  the  jury  for  a  moment 
doubt  whether  he  was  there  to  counte 
nance,  aid,  or  support;  or  for  curiosity 
alone ;  or  to  learn  how  the  wages  of  sin 
and  death  were  earned  by  the  perpe 
trator? 

Here  Mr.  Webster  read  the  law  from 
Hawkins.  1  Hawk.  204,  Lib.  1,  ch.  32, 

sec.  7. 

The  perpetrator  would  derive  courage, 
and  strength,  and  confidence,  from  the 
knowledge  that  one  of  his  associates 
was  near  by.  If  he  was  in  Brown 
Street,  he  could  have  been  there  for  no 
other  purpose.  If  there  for  this  pur 
pose,  then  he  was,  in  the  language  of 
the  law,  present,  aiding  and  abetting  in 
the  murder. 

His  interest  lay  in  being  somewhere 
else.  If  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
murder,  no  part  to  act,  why  not  stay  at 
home?  Why  should  he  jeopard  his  own 
life,  if  it  was  not  agreed  that  he  should 
be  there?  He  would  not  voluntarily  go 
where  the  very  place  would  cause  him 
to  swing  if  detected.  He  would  not 
voluntarily  assume  the  place  of  danger. 
His  taking  this  place  proves  that  he 
went  to  give  aid.  His  staying  away 
would  have  made  an  alibi.  If  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  murder,  he 
would  be  at  home,  where  he  could  prove 
his  alibi.  He  knew  he  was  in  danger, 
because  he  was  guilty  of  the  conspiracy, 
and,  if  he  had  nothing  to  do,  would 
not  expose  himself  to  suspicion  or 
detection. 

Did  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  counte 
nance  this  murder?  Did  he  concur,  or 
did  he  non-concur,  in  what  the  perpe 
trator  was  about  to  do?  Would  he 
have  tried  to  shield  him?  Would  he 
have  furnished  his  cloak  for  protection? 
Would  he  have  pointed  out  a  safe  way 
of  retreat?  As  you  would  answer  these 
questions,  so  you  should  answer  the 
general  question,  whether  he  was  there 
consenting  to  the  murder,  or  whether 
he  was  there  as  a  spectator  only. 

One  word  more  on  this  presence, 
called  constructive  presence.  What  aid 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


211 


is  to  be  rendered?  Where  is  the  line  to 
be  drawn,  between  acting,  and  omitting 
to  act?  Suppose  he  had  been  in  the 
house,  suppose  he  had  followed  the  per 
petrator  to  the  chamber,  what  could  he 
have  done?  This  was  to  be  a  murder 
by  stealth;  it  was  to  be  a  secret  assas 
sination.  It  was  not  their  purpose  to 
have  an  open  combat;  they  were  to  ap 
proach  their  victim  unawares,  and  si 
lently  give  the  fatal  blow.  But  if  he 
had  been  in  the  chamber,  no  one  can 
doubt  that  he  would  have  been  an 
abettor;  because  of  his  presence,  and 
ability  to  render  services,  if  needed. 
What  service  could  he  have  rendered,  if 
there?  Could  he  have  helped  him  to 
fly?  Could  he  have  aided  the  silence 
of  his  movements?  Could  he  have  fa 
cilitated  his  retreat,  on  the  first  alarm? 
Surely,  this  was  a  case  where  there  was 
more  of  safety  in  going  alone  than 
with  another;  where  company  would 
only  embarrass.  Richard  Crowninshield 
would  prefer  to  go  alone.  He  knew  his 
errand  too  well.  His  nerves  needed  no 
collateral  support.  He  was  not  the 
man  to  take  with  him  a  trembling  com 
panion.  He  would  prefer  to  have  his 
aid  at  a  distance.  He  would  not  wish 
to  be  encumbered  by  his  presence.  He 
would  prefer  to  have  him  out  of  the 
house.  He  would  prefer  that  he  should 
be  in  Brown  Street.  But  whether  in 
the  chamber,  in  the  house,  in  the 
garden,  or  in  the  street,  whatsoever  is 
aiding  in  actual  presence  is  aiding  in 
constructive  presence ;  any  thing  that  is 
aid  in  one  case  is  aid  in  the  other.1 

If,  then,  the  aid  be  anywhere,  so  as  to 
embolden  the  perpetrator,  to  afford  him 
hope  or  confidence  in  his  enterprise,  it 
is  the  same  as  though  the  person  stood 
at  his  elbow  wTith  his  sword  drawn.  His 
being  there  ready  to  act,  with  the  power 
to  act,  is  what  makes  him  an  abettor. 

Here  Mr.  Webster  referred  to  the  cases 
of  Kelly,  of  Hyde,  and  others,  cited  by 
counsel  for  the  defendant,  and  showed  that 
they  did  not  militate  with  the  doctrine  for 
which  he  contended.  The  difference  is,  in 
those  cases  there  was  open  violence ;  this 

i  4  Hawk.  201,  Lib.  4,  ch.  29,  sec.  8. 


was  a  case  of  secret  assassination.  The 
aid  must  meet  the  occasion.  Here  no  act 
ing  was  necessary,  but  watching,  conceal 
ment  of  escape,  management. 

What  are  the  facts  in  relation  to  this 
presence?  Frank  Knapp  is  proved  to 
have  been  a  conspirator,  proved  to  have 
known  that  the  deed  was  now  to  be 
done.  Is  it  not  probable  that  he  was  in 
Brown  Street  to  concur  in  the  murder? 
There  were  four  conspirators.  It  was 
natural  that  some  one  of  them  should 
go  with  the  perpetrator.  Richard  Crown 
inshield  was  to  be  the  perpetrator;  he 
was  to  give  the  blow.  There  is  no  evi 
dence  of  any  casting  of  the  parts  for 
the  others.  The  defendant  would  prob 
ably  be  the  man  to  take  the  second 
part.  He  was  fond  of  exploits,  he  was 
accustomed  to  the  use  of  sword-canes 
and  dirks.  If  any  aid  was  required, 
he  was  the  man  to  give  it.  At  least, 
there  is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary 
of  this. 

Aid  could  not  have  been  received 
from  Joseph  Knapp,  or  from  George 
Crowninshield.  Joseph  Knapp  was  at 
Wenham,  and  took  good  care  to  prove 
that  he  was  there.  George  Crownin 
shield  has  proved  satisfactorily  where 
he  was ;  that  he  was  in  other  company, 
such  as  it  was,  until  eleven  o'clock. 
This  narrows  the  inquiry.  This  de 
mands  of  the  prisoner  to  show,  if  he 
was  not  in  this  place,  where  he  was. 
It  calls  on  him  loudly  to  show  this,  and 
to  show  it  truly.  If  he  could  show  it, 
he  would  do  it.  If  he  does  not  tell,  and 
that  truly,  it  is  against  him.  The  de 
fence  of  an  alibi  is  a  double-edged 
sword.  He  knew  that  he  was  in  a  sit 
uation  where  he  might  be  called  upon 
to  account  for  himself.  If  he  had  had 
no  particular  appointment  or  business 
to  attend  to,  he  would  have  taken  care 
to  be  able  so  to  account.  He  would 
have  been  out  of  town,  or  in  some  good 
company.  Has  he  accounted  for  him 
self  on  that  night  to  your  satisfaction? 

The  prisoner  has  attempted  to  prove 
an  alibi  in  two  \vays.  In  the  first  place, 
by  four  young  men  with  whom  he  says 
he  was  in  company,  on  the  evening 
of  the  murder,  from  seven  o'clock  till 


212 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


near  ten  o'clock.  This  depends  upon 
the  certainty  of  the  night.  In  the 
second  place,  by  his  family,  from  ten 
o'clock  afterwards.  This  depends  upon 
the  certainty  of  the  time  of  the  night. 
These  two  classes  of  proof  have  no  con 
nection  with  each  other.  One  may  be 
true,  and  the  other  false;  or  they  may 
both  be  true,  or  both  be  false.  I  shall 
examine  this  testimony  with  some  at 
tention,  because,  on  a  former  trial,  it 
made  more  impression  on  the  minds  of 
the  court  than  on  my  own  mind.  I 
think,  when  carefully  sifted  and  com 
pared,  it  will  be  found  to  have  in  it 
more  of  plausibility  than  reality. 

Mr.  Page  testifies,  that  on  the  evening 
of  the  6th  of  April  he  was  in  company 
with  Burchmore,  Balch,  and  Forrester, 
and  that  he  met  the  defendant  about 
seven  o'clock,  near  the  Salem  Hotel; 
that  he  afterwards  met  him  at  Re- 
mond's,  about  nine  o'clock,  and  that 
he  was  in  company  with  him  a  consid 
erable  part  of  the  evening.  This  young 
gentleman  is  a  member  of  college,  and 
says  that  he  came  to  town  the  Saturday 
evening  previous;  that  he  is  now  able 
to  say  that  it  was  the  night  of  the  mur 
der  when  he  walked  with  Frank  Knapp, 
from  the  recollection  of  the  fact,  that 
he  called  himself  to  an  account,  on  the 
morning  after  the  murder,  as  it  is  nat 
ural  for  men  to  do  when  an  extraor 
dinary  occurrence  happens.  Gentlemen, 
this  kind  of  evidence  is  not  satisfactory ; 
general  impressions  as  to  time  are  not 
to  be  relied  on.  If  I  were  called  on  to 
state  the  particular  day  on  which  any 
witness  testified  in  this  cause,  I  could 
not  do  it.  Every  man  will  notice  the 
same  thing  in  his  own  mind.  There  is 
no  one  of  these  young  men  that  could 
give  an  account  of  himself  for  any  other 
day  in  the  month  of  April.  They  are 
made  to  remember  the  fact,  and  then 
they  think  they  remember  the  time. 
The  witness  has  no  means  of  knowing 
it  was  Tuesday  rather  than  any  other 
time.  He  did  not  know  it  at  first;  he 
could  not  know  it  afterwards.  He  says 
he  called  himself  to  an  account.  This 
has  no  more  to  do  with  the  murder  than 
with  the  man  in  the  moon.  Such  testi 


mony  is  not  worthy  to  be  relied  on  in 
any  forty-shilling  cause.  What  occasion 
had  he  to  call  himself  to  an  account? 
Did  he  suppose  that  he  should  be  sus 
pected?.  Had  he  any  intimation  of  this 
conspiracy? 

Suppose,  Gentlemen,  you  were  either 
of  you  asked  where  you  were,  or  what 
you  were  doing,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of 
June ;  you  could  not  answer  this  ques 
tion  without  calling  to  mind  some  events 
to  make  it  certain.  Just  as  well  may 
you  remember  on  what  you  dined  each 
day  of  the  year  past.  Time  is  identical. 
Its  subdivisions  are  all  alike.  No  man 
knows  one  day  from  another,  or  one 
hour  from  another,  but  by  some  fact 
connected  with  it.  Days  and  hours  are 
not  visible  to  the  senses,  nor  to  be  appre 
hended  and  distinguished  by  the  under 
standing.  The  flow  of  time  is  known 
only  by  something  which  marks  it ;  and 
he  who  speaks  of  the  date  of  occurrences 
with  nothing  to  guide  his  recollection 
speaks  at  random,  and  is  not  to  be  relied 
on.  This  young  gentleman  remembers 
the  facts  and  occurrences;  he  knows 
nothing  why  they  should  not  have  hap 
pened  on  the  evening  of  the  6th ;  but  he 
knows  no  more.  All  the  rest  is  evi 
dently  conjecture  or  impression. 

Mr.  White  informs  you,  that  he  told 
him  he  could  not  tell  what  night  it  was. 
The  first  thoughts  are  all  that  are  valu 
able  in  such  case.  They  miss  the  mark 
by  taking  second  aim. 

Mr.  Balch  believes,  but  is  not  sure, 
that  he  was  with  Frank  Knapp  on  the 
evening  of  the  murder.  He  has  given 
different  accounts  of  the  time.  He  has 
no  means  of  making  it  certain.  All  he 
knows  is,  that  it  was  some  evening  be 
fore  Fast-day.  But  whether  Monday, 
Tuesday,  or  Saturday,  he  cannot  tell. 

Mr.  Burchmore  says,  to  the  best  of 
his  belief,  it  was  the  evening  of  the 
murder.  Afterwards  he  attempts  to 
speak  positively,  from  recollecting  that 
he  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  Wil 
liam  Peirce,  as  he  went  to  the  Mineral 
Spring  on  Fast-day.  Last  Monday 
morning  he  told  Colonel  Putnam  he 
could  not  fix  the  time.  This  witness 
stands  in  a  much  worse  plight  than 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


213 


either  of  the  others.  It  is  difficult  to 
reconcile  all  he  has  said  with  any  belief 
in  the  accuracy  of  his  recollections. 

Mr.  Forrester  does  not  speak  with  any 
certainty  as  to  the  night ;  and  it  is  very 
certain  that  he  told  Mr.  Loring  and  oth 
ers,  that  he  did  not  know  what  night  it 
was. 

Now,  what  does  the  testimony  of 
these  four  young  men  amount  to?  The 
only  circumstance  by  which  they  ap 
proximate  to  an  identifying  of  the  night 
is,  that  three  of  them  say  it  was  cloudy; 
they  think  their  walk  was  either  on 
Monday  or  Tuesday  evening,  and  it  is 
admitted  that  Monday  evening  was 
clear,  whence  they  draw  the  inference 
that  it  must  have  been  Tuesday. 

But,  fortunately,  there  is  one  fact 
disclosed  in  their  testimony  that  settles 
the  question.  Balch  says,  that  on  the 
evening,  whenever  it  was,  he  saw  the 
prisoner;  the  prisoner  told  him  he  was 
going  out  of  town  on  horseback,  for  a 
distance  of  about  twenty  minutes'  drive, 
and  that  he  was  going  to  get  a  horse  at 
Osborn's.  This  was  about  seven  o'clock. 
At  about  nine,  Balch  says  he  saw  the 
prisoner  again,  and  was  then  told  by 
him  that  he  had  had  his  ride,  and  had 
returned.  Now  it  appears  by  Osborn's 
books,  that  the  prisoner  had  a  saddle- 
horse  from  his  stable,  not  on  Tuesday 
evening,  the  night  of  the  murder,  but 
on  the  Saturday  evening  previous.  This 
fixes  the  time  about  which  these  young 
men  testify,  and  is  a  complete  answer 
and  refutation  of  the  attempted  alibi  on 
Tuesday  evening. 

I  come  now  to  speak  of  the  testimony 
adduced  by  the  defendant  to  explain 
where  he  was  after  ten  o'clock  on  the 
night  of  the  murder.  This  comes  chiefly 
from  members  of  the  family ;  from  his 
father  and  brothers. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  affidavit  of  the 
prisoner  should  be  received  as  evidence 
of  what  his  brother,  Samuel  H.  Knapp, 
would  testify  if  present.  Samuel  H. 
Knapp  says,  that,  about  ten  minutes 
past  ten  o'clock,  his  brother,  Frank 
Knapp,  on  his  way  to  bed,  opened  his 
chamber  door,  made  some  remarks, 


closed  the  door,  and  went  to  his  cham 
ber;  and  that  he  did  not  hear  him  leave 
it  afterwards.  How  is  this  witness  able 
to  fix  the  time  at  ten  minutes  past  ten? 
There  is  no  circumstance  mentioned  by 
which  he  fixes  it.  He  had  been  in  bed, 
probably  asleep,  and  was  aroused  from 
his  sleep  by  the  opening  of  the  door. 
Was  he  in  a  situation  to  speak  of  time 
with  precision?  Could  he  know,  under 
such  circumstances,  whether  it  was  ten 
minutes  past  ten,  or  ten  minutes  be 
fore  eleven,  when  his  brother  spoke  to 
him?  What  would  be  the  natural  re 
sult  in  such  a  case?  But  we  are  not  left 
to  conjecture  this  result.  We  have 
positive  testimony  on  this  point.  Mr. 
Webb  tells  you  that  Samuel  told  him, 
on  the  8th  of  June,  "  that  he  did  not 
know  what  time  his  brother  Frank  came 
home,  and  that  he  was  not  at  homewThen 
he  went  to  bed."  You  will  consider 
this  testimony  of  Mr.  Webb  as  indorsed 
upon  this  affidavit;  and  with  this  in 
dorsement  upon  it,  you  will  give  it  its 
due  weight.  This  statement  was  made 
to  him  after  Frank  was  arrested. 

I  come  to  the  testimony  of  the  father. 
I  find  myself  incapable  of  speaking  of 
him  or  his  testimony  with  severity.  Un 
fortunate  old  man!  Another  Lear,  in 
the  conduct  of  his  children;  another 
Lear,  I  apprehend,  in  the  effect  of  his 
distress  upon  his  mind  and  understand 
ing.  He  is  brought  here  to  testify,  un 
der  circumstances  that  disarm  severity, 
and  call  loudly  for  sympathy.  Though 
it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  his  story 
cannot  be  credited,  yet  I  am  unable  to 
speak  of  him  otherwise  than  in  sorrow 
and  grief.  Unhappy  father!  he  strives 
to  remember,  perhaps  persuades  himself 
that  he  does  remember,  that  on  the  even 
ing  of  the  murder  he  was  himself  at 
home  at  ten  o'clock.  He  thinks,  or 
seems  to  think,  that  his  son  came  in  at 
about  five  minutes  past  ten.  He  fancies 
that  he  remembers  his  conversation ;  he 
thinks  he  spoke  of  bolting  the  door;  he 
thinks  he  asked  the  time  of  night; 
he  seems  to  remember  his  then  going  to 
his  bed.  Alas !  these  are  but  the  swim 
ming  fancies  of  an  agitated  and  distressed 
mind.  Alas!  they  are  but  the  dreams 


214 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


of  hope,  its  uncertain  lights,  flickering 
on  the  thick  darkness  of  parental  dis 
tress.  Alas !  the  miserable  father  knows 
nothing,  in  reality,  of  all  these  things. 

Mr.  Shepard  says  that  the  first  con 
versation  he  had  with  Mr.  Knapp  was 
soon  after  the  murder,  and  before  the 
arrest  of  his  sons.  Mr.  Knapp  says  it 
was  after  the  arrest  of  his  sons.  His 
own  fears  led  him  to  say  to  Mr.  Shep 
ard,  that  his  "son  Frank  was  at  home 
that  night;  and  so  Phippen  told  him," 
or  "as  Phippen  told  him."  Mr.  Shep 
ard  says  that  he  was  struck  with  the 
remark  at  the  time;  that  it  made  an 
unfavorable  impression  on  his  mind; 
he  does  not  tell  you  what  that  impression 
was,  but  when  you  connect  it  with  the 
previous  inquiry  he  had  made,  whether 
Frank  had  continued  to  associate  with 
the  Crowninshields,  and  recollect  that 
the  Crowninshields  were  then  known 
to  be  suspected  of  this  crime,  can  you 
doubt  what  this  impression  was?  can  you 
doubt  as  to  the  fears  he  then  had? 

This  poor  old  man  tells  you,  that  he 
was  greatly  perplexed  at  the  time ;  that 
he  found  himself  in  embarrassed  cir 
cumstances  ;  that  on  this  very  night  he 
was  engaged  in  making  an  assignment 
of  his  property  to  his  friend,  Mr.  Shep 
ard.  If  ever  charity  should  furnish  a 
mantle  for  error,  it  should  be  here.  Im 
agination  cannot  picture  a  more  deplora 
ble,  distressed  condition. 

The  same  general  remarks  may  be 
applied  to  his  conversation  with  Mr. 
Treadwell,  as  have  been  made  upon  that 
with  Mr.  Shepard.  He  told  him,  that 
he  believed  Frank  was  at  home  about 
the  usual  time.  In  his  conversations 
with  either  of  these  persons,  he  did  not 
pretend  to  know,  of  his  own  knowledge, 
the  time  that  he  came  home.  He  now 
tells  you  positively  that  he  recollects  the 
time,  and  that  he  so  told  Mr.  Shepard. 
He  is  directly  contradicted  by  both  these 
witnesses,  as  respectable  men  as  Salem 
affords. 

This  idea  of  an  alibi  is  of  recent  ori 
gin.  Would  Samuel  Knapp  have  gone 
to  sea  if  it  were  then  thought  of?  His 
testimony,  if  true,  was  too  important  to 
be  lost.  If  there  be  any  truth  in  this 


part  of  the  alibi,  it  is  so  near  in  point  of 
time  that  it  cannot  be  relied  on.  The 
mere  variation  of  half  an  hour  would 
avoid  it.  The  mere  variations  of  differ 
ent  timepieces  would  explain  it. 

Has  the  defendant  proved  where  he 
was  on  that  night?  If  you  doubt  about 
it,  there  is  an  end  of  it.  The  burden 
is  upon  him  to  satisfy  you  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt.  Osborn's  books,  in 
connection  with  what  the  young  men 
state,  are  conclusive,  I  think,  on  this 
point.  He  has  not,  then,  accounted  for 
himself;  he  has  attempted  it,  and  has 
failed.  I  pray  you  to  remember,  Gen 
tlemen,  that  this  is  a  case  in  which  the 
prisoner  would,  more  than  any  other,  be 
rationally  able  to  account  for  himself  on 
the  night  of  the  murder,  if  he  could  do 
so.  He  was  in  the  conspiracy,  he  knew 
the  murder  was  then  to  be  committed, 
and  if  he  himself  was  to  have  no  hand 
in  its  actual  execution,  he  would  of 
course,  as  a  matter  of  safety  and  precau 
tion,  be  somewhere  else,  and  be  able  to 
prove  afterwards  that  he  had  been  some 
where  else.  Having  this  motive  to  prove 
himself  elsewhere,  and  the  power  to  do 
it  if  he  were  elsewhere,  his  failing  in 
such  proof  must  necessarily  leave  a  very 
strong  inference  against  him. 

But,  Gentlemen,  let  us  now  consider 
what  is  the  evidence  produced  on  the 
part  of  the  government  to  prove  that 
John  Francis  Knapp,  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  was  in  Brown  Street  on  the  night 
of  the  murder.  This  is  a  point  of  vital 
importance  in  this  cause.  Unless  this 
be  made  out,  beyond  reasonable  doubt, 
the  law  of  presence  does  not  apply  to  the 
case.  The  government  undertake  to 
prove  that  he  was  present  aiding  in  the 
murder,  by  proving  that  he  was  in  Brown 
Street  for  this  purpose.  Now,  what  are 
the  undoubted  facts?  They  are,  that 
two  persons  were  seen  in  that  street, 
several  times  during  that  evening,  under 
suspicious  circumstances;  under  such 
circumstances  as  induced  those  who  saw 
them  to  watch  their  movements.  Of 
this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Mirick 
saw  a  man  standing  at  the  post  opposite 
his  store  from  fifteen  minutes  before 
nine  until  twenty  minutes  after,  dressed 


THE   MURDER   OF    CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


215 


in  a  full  frock-coat,  glazed  cap,  and  so 
forth,  in  size  and  general  appearance 
answering  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 
This  person  was  waiting  there;  and 
whenever  any  one  approached  him,  he 
moved  to  and  from  the  corner,  as  though 
he  would  avoid  being  suspected  or  rec 
ognized.  Afterwards,  two  persons  were 
seen  by  Webster,  walking  in  Howard 
Street,  with  a  slow,  deliberate  movement 
that  attracted  his  attention.  This  was 
about  half-past  nine.  One  of  these  he 
took  to  be  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  the 
other  he  did  not  know. 

About  half -past  ten  a  person  is  seen 
sitting  on  the  rope- walk  steps,  wrapped 
in  a  cloak.  He  drops  his  head  when 
passed,  to  avoid  being  known.  Shortly 
after,  two  persons  are  seen  to  meet  in  this 
street,  without  ceremony  or  salutation, 
and  in  a  hurried  manner  to  converse  for 
a  short  time;  then  to  separate,  and  run 
off  with  great  speed.  Now,  on  this  same 
night  a  gentleman  is  slain,  murdered 
in  his  bed,  his  house  being  entered  by 
stealth  from  without ;  and  his  house  sit 
uated  within  three  hundred  feet  of  this 
street.  The  windows  of  his  chamber 
were  in  plain  sight  from  this  street;  a 
weapon  of  death  is  afterwards  found  in 
a  place  where  these  persons  were  seen  to 
pass,  in  a  retired  place,  around  which 
they  had  been  seen  lingering.  It  is  now 
known  that  this  murder  was  committed 
by  four  persons,  conspiring  together  for 
this  purpose.  No  account  is  given  who 
these  suspected  persons  thus  seen  in 
Brown  Street  and  its  neighborhood  were. 
Now,  I  ask,  Gentlemen,  whether  you  or 
any  man  can  doubt  that  this  murder  was 
committed  by  the  persons  who  were  thus 
in  and  about  Brown  Street.  Can  any 
person  doubt  that  they  were  there  for 
purposes  connected  with  this  murder? 
If  not  for  this  purpose,  what  were  they 
there  for?  When  there  is  a  cause  so 
near  at  hand,  why  wander  into  conjec 
ture  for  an  explanation?  Common-sense 
requires  you  to  take  the  nearest  ade 
quate  cause  for  a  known  effect.  Who 
were  these  suspicious  persons  in  Brown 
Street?  There  was  something  extraor 
dinary  about  them ;  something  notice 
able,  and  noticed  at  the  time:  something 


in  their  appearance  that  aroused  suspi 
cion.  And  a  man  is  found  the  next 
morning  murdered  in  the  near  vicinity. 

Now,  so  long  as  no  other  account  shall 
be  given  of  those  suspicious  persons,  so 
long  the  inference  must  remain  irresisti 
ble  that  they  were  the  murderers.  Let 
it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  already 
shown  that  this  murder  was  the  result 
of  conspiracy  and  of  concert;  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  the  house,  having 
been  opened  from  within,  was  entered 
by  stealth  from  without.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  Brown  Street,  where 
these  persons  were  repeatedly  seen  under 
such  suspicious  circumstances,  was  a  place 
from  which  every  occupied  room  in  Mr. 
White's  house  is  clearly  seen;  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  the  place,  though  thus 
very  near  to  Mr.  White's  house,  is  a  re 
tired  and  lonely  place ;  and  let  it  be  re 
membered  that  the  instrument  of  death 
was  afterwards  found  concealed  very 
near  the  same  spot. 

Must  not  every  man  come  to  the  con 
clusion,  that  these  persons  thus  seen 
in  Brown  Street  were  the  murderers? 
Every  man's  own  judgment,  I  think, 
must  satisfy  him  that  this  must  be  so. 
It  is  a  plain  deduction  of  common  sense. 
It  is  a  point  on  which  each  one  of  you 
may  reason  like  a  Hale  or  a  Mansfield. 
The  two  occurrences  explain  each  other. 
The  murder  shows  why  these  persons 
were  thus  lurking,  at  that  hour,  in  Brown 
Street ;  and  their  lurking  in  Brown  Street 
shows  who  committed  the  murder. 

If,  then,  the  persons  in  and  about 
Brown  Street  were  the  plotters  and  exe- 
cuters  of  the  murder  of  Captain  White, 
we  know  who  they  were,  and  you  know 
that  there  is  one  of  them. 

This  fearful  concatenation  of  circum 
stances  puts  him  to  an  account.  He 
was  a  conspirator.  He  had  entered  into 
this  plan  of  murder.  The  murder  is 
committed,  and  he  is  known  to  have 
been  within  three  minutes'  walk  of  the 
place.  He  must  account  for  himself. 
He  has  attempted  this,  and  failed. 
Then,  with  all  these  general  reasons  to 
show  he  was  actually  in  Brown  Street, 
and  his  failures  in  his  alibi,  let  us  see 
what  is  the  direct  proof  of  his  being 


216 


THE   MURDER  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


there.  But  first,  let  me  ask,  is  it  not 
very  remarkable  that  there  is  no  attempt 
to  show  where  Richard  Crowninshield, 
Jr.  was  on  that  night?  We  hear  noth 
ing  of  him.  He  was  seen  in  none  of  his 
usual  haunts  about  the  town.  Yet,  if 
he  was  the  actual  perpetrator  of  the  mur 
der,  which  nobody  doubts,  he  was  in  the 
town  somewhere.  Can  you,  therefore, 
entertain  a  doubt  that  he  was  one  of 
the  persons  seen  in  Brown  Street?  And 
as  to  the  prisoner,  you  will  recollect, 
that,  since  the  testimony  of  the  young 
men  has  failed  to  show  where  he  was  on 
that  evening,  the  last  we  hear  or  know 
of  him,  on  the  day  preceding  the  mur 
der,  is,  that  at  four  o'clock,  p.  M.,  he 
was  at  his  brother's  in  Wenham.  He 
had  left  home,  after  dinner,  in  a  manner 
doubtless  designed  to  avoid  observation, 
and  had  gone  to  Wenham,  probably  by 
way  of  Danvers.  As  we  hear  nothing 
of  him  after  four  o'clock,  p.  M.,  for  the 
remainder  of  the  day  and  evening ;  as  he 
was  one  of  the  conspirators ;  as  Richard 
Crowninshield,  Jr.  was  another;  as 
Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.  was  in  town 
in  the  evening,  and  yet  seen  in  no  usual 
place  of  resort,  — the  inference  is  very 
fair,  that  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr. 
and  the  prisoner  were  together,  acting 
in  execution  of  their  conspiracy.  Of 
the  four  conspirators,  J.  J.  Knapp,  Jr. 
was  at  Wenham,  and  George  Crownin 
shield  has  been  accounted  for;  so  that 
if  the  persons  seen  in  Brown  Street  were 
the  murderers,  one  of  them  must  have 
been  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  and 
the  other  must  have  been  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar. 

Now,  as  to  the  proof  of  his  identity 
with  one  of  the  persons  seen  in  Brown 
Street.  Mr.  Mirick,  a  cautious  witness, 
examined  the  person  he  saw,  closely,  in 
a  light  night,  and  says  that  he  thinks 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  the  person ;  and 
that  he  should  not  hesitate  at  all,  if  he 
were  seen  in  the  same  dress.  His  opin 
ion  is  formed  partly  from  his  own  obser 
vation,  and  partly  from  the  description 
of  others.  But  this  description  turns 
out  to  be  only  in  regard  to  the  dress.  It 
is  said,  that  he  is  now  more  confident 
than  on  the  former  trial.  If  he  has 


varied  in  his  testimony,  make  such  al 
lowance  as  you  may  think  proper.  I  do 
not  perceive  any  material  variance.  He 
thought  him  the  same  person,  when  he 
was  first J^r ought  to  court,  and  as  he  saw 
him  get  out  of  the  chaise.  This  is  one 
of  the  cases  in  which  a  witness  is  per 
mitted  to  give  an  opinion.  This  wit 
ness  is  as  honest  as  yourselves,  neither 
willing  nor  swift;  but  he  says,  he  be 
lieves  it  was  the  man.  His  words  are, 
"  This  is  my  opinion  ";  and  this  opinion 
it  is  proper  for  him  to  give.  If  partly 
founded  on  what  he  has  heard,  then  this 
opinion  is  not  to  be  taken;  but  if  on 
what  he  saw,  then  you  can  have  no  better 
evidence.  I  lay  no  stress  on  similarity 
of  dress.  No  man  will  ever  lose  his  life 
by  my  voice  on  such  evidence.  But 
then  it  is  proper  to  notice,  that  no  infer 
ences  drawn  from  any  dissimilarity  of 
dress  can  be  given  in  the  prisoner's 
favor;  because,  in  fact,  the  person  seen 
by  Mirick  was  dressed  like  the  prisoner. 

The  description  of  the  person  seen  by 
Mirick  answers  to  that  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar.  In  regard  to  the  supposed 
discrepancy  of  statements,  before  and 
now,  there  would  be  no  end  to  such 
minute  inquiries.  It  would  not  be 
strange  if  witnesses  should  vary.  I  do 
not  think  much  of  slight  shades  of  varia 
tion.  If  I  believe  the  witness  is  honest, 
that  is  enough.  If  he  has  expressed 
himself  more  strongly  now  than  then, 
this  does  not  prove  him  false. 

Peter  E.  Webster  saw  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  as  he  then  thought,  and  still 
thinks,  walking  in  Howard  Street  at 
half-past  nine  o'clock.  He  then  thought 
it  was  Frank  Knapp,  and  has  not  altered 
his  opinion  since.  He  knew  him  well; 
he  had  long  known  him.  If  he  then 
thought  it  was  he,  this  goes  far  to  prove 
it.  He  observed  him  the  more,  as  it  was 
unusual  to  see  gentlemen  walk  there  at 
that  hour.  It  was  a  retired,  lonely  street. 
Now,  is  there  reasonable  doubt  that  Mr. 
Webster  did  see  him  there  that  night? 
How  can  you  have  more  proof  than  this  ? 
He  judged  by  his  walk,  by  his  general 
appearance,  by  his  deportment.  We  all 
judge  in  this  manner.  If  you  believe 
he  is  right,  it  goes  a  great  way  in  this 


THE  MURDER  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


217 


case.  But  then  this  person,  it  is  said, 
had  a  cloak  on,  and  that  he  could  not, 
therefore,  be  the  same  person  that  Mirick 
saw.  If  we  were  treating  of  men  that 
had  'no  occasion  to  disguise  themselves 
or  their  conduct,  there  might  be  some 
thing  in  this  argument.  But  as  it  is, 
there  is  little  in  it.  It  may  be  presumed 
that  they  would  change  their  dress.  This 
would  help  their  disguise.  What  is  easier 
than  to  throw  off  a  cloak,  and  again  put 
it  on?  Perhaps  he  was  less  fearful  of 
being  known  when  alone,  than  when 
with  the  perpetrator. 

Mr.  Southwick  swears  all  that  a  man 
can  swear.  He  has  the  best  means  of 
judging  that  could  be  had  at  the  time. 
He  tells  you  that  he  left  his  father's 
house  at  half-past  ten  o'clock,  and  as  he 
passed  to  his  own  house  in  Brown  Street 
he  saw  a  man  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the 
rope-walk;  that  he  passed  him  three 
times,  and  each  time  he  held  down  his 
head,  so  that  he  did  not  see  his  face.  That 
the  man  had  on  a  cloak,  which  was  not 
wrapped  around  him,  and  a  glazed  cap. 
That  he  took  the  man  to  be  Frank  Knapp 
at  the  time ;  that,  when  he  went  into  his 
house,  he  told  his  wife  that  he  thought 
it  was  Frank  Knapp ;  that  he  knew  him 
well,  having  known  him  from  a  boy. 
And  his  wife  swears  that  he  did  so  tell 
her  when  he  came  home.  What  could 
mislead  this  witness  at  the  time?  He 
was  not  then  suspecting  Frank  Knapp 
of  any  thing.  He  could  not  then  be  in 
fluenced  by  any  prejudice.  If  you  believe 
that  the  witness  saw  Frank  Knapp  in  this 
position  at  this  time,  it  proves  the  case. 
Whether  you  believe  it  or  not  depends 
upon  the  credit  of  the  witness.  He 
swears  it.  If  true,  it  is  solid  evidence. 
Mrs.  Southwick  supports  her  husband. 
Are  they  true?  Are  they  worthy  of 
belief?  If  he  deserves  the  epithets  ap 
plied  to  him,  then  he  ought  not  to  be 
believed.  In  this  fact  they  cannot  be 
mistaken;  they  are  right,  or  they  are 
perjured.  As  to  his  not  speaking  to 
Frank  Knapp,  that  depends  upon  their 
intimacy.  But  a  very  good  reason  is, 
Frank  chose  to  disguise  himself.  This 
makes  nothing  against  his  credit.  But 
it  is  said  that  he  should  not  be  believed. 


And  why?  Because,  it  is  said,  he  him 
self  now  tells  you,  that,  when  he  testi 
fied  before  the  grand  jury  at  Ipswich,  he 
did  not  then  say  that  he  thought  the 
person  he  saw  in  Brown  Street  was 
Frank  Knapp,  but  that  "the  person 
was  about  the  size  of  Selman."  The 
means  of  attacking  him,  therefore,  come 
from  himself.  If  he  is  a  false  man,  why 
should  he  tell  truths  against  himself? 
they  rely  on  his  veracity  to  prove  that  he 
is  a  liar.  Before  you  can  come  to  this 
conclusion,  you  will  consider  whether  all 
the  circumstances  are  now  known,  that 
should  have  a  bearing  on  this  point. 
Suppose  that,  when  he  was  before  the 
grand  jury,  he  was  asked  by  the  attor 
ney  this  question,  "  Was  the  person  you 
saw  in  Brown  Street  about  the  size  of 
Selman?  "  and  he  answered  Yes.  TJiis 
was  all  true.  Suppose,  also,  that  he 
expected  to  be  inquired  of  further,  and 
no  further  questions  were  put  to  him. 
Would  it  not  be  extremely  hard  to  im 
pute  to  him  perjury  for  this?  It  is  not 
uncommon  for  witnesses  to  think  that 
they  have  done  all  their  duty,  when  they 
have  answered  the  questions  put  to  them. 
But  suppose  that  we  admit  that  he  did 
not  then  tell  all  he  knew,  this  does  not 
affect  the  fact  at  all;  because  he  did  tell, 
at  the  time,  in  the  hearing  of  others, 
that  the  person  he  saw  was  Frank  Knapp. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion 
against  the  veracity  or  accuracy  of  Mrs. 
Southwick.  Now  she  swears  positively, 
that  her  husband  came  into  the  house 
and  told  her  that  he  had  seen  a  person 
on  the  rope- walk  steps,  and  believed  it 
was  Frank  Knapp. 

It  is  said  that  Mr.  Southwick  is  con 
tradicted,  also,  by  Mr.  Shillaber.  I  do 
not  so  understand  Mr.  Shillaber's  testi 
mony.  I  think  what  they  both  testify 
is  reconcilable,  and  consistent.  My 
learned  brother  said,  on  a  similar  occa 
sion,  that  there  is  more  probability,  in 
such  cases,  that  the  persons  hearing 
should  misunderstand,  than  that  the 
person  speaking  should  contradict  him 
self.  I  think  the  same  remark  appli 
cable  here. 

You  have  all  witnessed  the  uncer 
tainty  of  testimony,  when  witnesses  are 


218 


THE   MURDEK  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


called  to  testify  what  other  witnesses 
said.  Several  respectable  counsellors 
have  been  summoned,  on  this  occasion, 
to  give  testimony  of  that  sort.  They 
have,  every  one  of  them,  given  different 
versions.  They  all  took  minutes  at  the 
time,  and  without  doubt  intend  to  state 
the  truth.  But  still  they  differ.  Mr. 
Shillaber's  version  is  different  from 
every  thing  that  Southwick  has  stated 
elsewhere.  But  little  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  on  slight  variations  in  testimony, 
unless  they  are  manifestly  intentional. 
1  think  that  Mr.  Shillaber  must  be  sat 
isfied  that  he  did  not  rightly  understand 
Mr.  Southwick.  I  confess  I  misunder 
stood  Mr.  Shillaber  on  the  former  trial, 
if  I  now  rightly  understand  him.  I, 
therefore,  did  not  then  recall  Mr.  South 
wick  to  the  stand.  Mr.  Southwick,  as  I 
read  it,  understood  Mr.  Shillaber  as  ask 
ing  him  about  a  person  coming  out  of 
Newbury  Street,  and  whether,  for  aught 
he  knew,  it  might  not  be  Richard 
Crowninshield,  Jr.  He  answered,  that 
he  could  not  tell.  He  did  not  under 
stand  Mr.  Shillaber  as  questioning  him 
as  to  the  person  whom  he  saw  sitting  on 
the  steps  of  the  rope-walk.  Southwick, 
on  this  trial,  having  heard  Mr.  Shillaber, 
has  been  recalled  to  the  stand,  and  states 
that  Mr.  Shillaber  entirely  misunder 
stood  him.  This  is  certainly  most  prob 
able,  because  the  controlling  fact  in  the 
case  is  not  controverted;  that  is,  that 
Southwick  did  tell  his  wife,  at  the  very 
moment  he  entered  his  house,  that  he 
had  seen  a  person  on  the  rope -walk  steps, 
whom  he  believed  to  be  Frank  Knapp. 
Nothing  can  prove  with  more  certainty 
than  this,  that  Southwick,  at  the  time, 
thought  the  person  whom  he  thus  saw  to 
be  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

Mr.  Bray  is  an  acknowledged  accu 
rate  and  intelligent  witness.  He  was 
highly  complimented  by  my  brother  on 
the  former  trial,  although  he  now  charges 
him  with  varying  his  testimony.  What 
could  be  his  motive?  You  will  be  slow 
in  imputing  to  him  any  design  of  this 
kind.  I  deny  altogether  that  there  is 
any  contradiction.  There  may  be  dif 
ferences,  but  not  contradiction.  These 
arise  from  the  difference  in  the  questions 


put;  the  difference  between  believing 
and  knowing.  On  the  first  trial,  he 
said  he  did  not  know  the  person,  and 
now  says  the  same.  Then,  we  did  not 
do  all  w§  had  a  right  to  do.  We  did  not 
ask  him  who  he  thought  it  was.  Now, 
when  so  asked,  he  says  he  believes  it 
was  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  If  he  had 
then  been  asked  this  question,  he  would 
have  given  the  same  answer.  That  he 
has  expressed  himself  more  strongly,  I 
admit;  but  he  has  not  contradicted  him 
self.  He  is  more  confident  now;  and 
that  is  all.  A  man  may  not  assert  a 
thing,  and  still  may  have  no  doubt  upon 
it.  Cannot  every  man  see  this  distinc 
tion  to  be  consistent?  I  leave  him  in 
that  attitude ;  that  only  is  the  difference. 
On  questions  of  identity,  opinion  is  evi 
dence.  We  may  ask  the  witness,  either 
if  he  knew  who  the  person  seen  was,  or 
who  he  thinks  he  was.  And  he  may 
well  answer,  as  Captain  Bray  has  an 
swered,  that  he  does  not  know  who  it 
was,  but  that  he  thinks  it  was  the  pris 
oner. 

We  have  offered  to  produce  witnesses 
to  prove,  that,  as  soon  as  Bray  saw  the 
prisoner,  he  pronounced  him  the  same 
person.  WTe  are  not  at  liberty  to  call 
them  to  corroborate  our  own  witness. 
How,  then,  could  this  fact  of  the  pris 
oner's  being  in  Brown  Street  be  better 
proved?  If  ten  witnesses  had  testified 
to  it,  it  would  be  no  better.  Two  men, 
who  knew  him  well,  took  it  to  be  Frank 
Knapp,  and  one  of  them  so  said,  when 
there  was  nothing  to  mislead  them. 
Two  others,  who  examined  him  closely, 
now  swear  to  their  opinion  that  he  is  the 
man. 

Miss  Jaqueth  saw  three  persons  pass 
by  the  rope-walk,  several  evenings  before 
the  murder.  She  saw  one  of  them  point 
ing  towards  Mr.  White's  house.  She 
noticed  that  another  had  something 
which  appeared  to  be  like  an  instru 
ment  of  music;  that  he  put  it  behind 
him  and  attempted  to  conceal  it.  Who 
were  these  persons?  This  was  but  a 
few  steps  from  the  place  where  this  ap 
parent  instrument  of  music  (of  music 
such  as  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr. 
spoke  of  to  Palmer)  was  afterwards 


THE   MURDER   OF.  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


219 


found.  These  facts  prove  this  a  point 
of  rendezvous  for  these  parties.  They 
show  Brown  Street  to  have  been  the 
place  for  consultation  and  observation; 
and  to  this  purpose  it  was  well  suited. 

Mr.  Burns 's  testimony  is  also  impor 
tant.  What  was  the  defendant's  object 
in  his  private  conversation  with  Burns? 
He  knew  that  Burns  was  out  that  night; 
that  he  lived  near  Brown  Street,  and 
that  he  had  probabty  seen  him;  and  he 
wished  him  to  say  nothing.  He  said  to 
Burns,  "  If  you  saw  any  of  your  friends 
out  that  night,  say  nothing  about  it; 
my  brother  Joe  and  I  are  your  friends." 
This  is  plain  proof  that  he  wished  to  say 
to  him,  if  you  saw  me  in  Brown  Street 
that  night,  say  nothing  about  it. 

But  it  is  said  that  Burns  ought  not  to 
be  believed,  because  he  mistook  the  color 
of  the  dagger,  and  because  he  has  varied 
in  his  description  of  it.  These  are  slight 
circumstances,  if  his  general  character 
be  good.  To  my  mind  they  are  of  no 
importance.  It  is  for  you  to  make  what 
deduction  you  may  think  proper,  on  this 
account,  from  the  weight  of  his  evidence. 
His  conversation  with  Burns,  if  Burns 
is  believed,  shows  two  things;  first,  that 
he  desired  Burns  not  to  mention  it,  if  he 
had  seen  him  on  the  night  of  the  mur 
der;  second,  that  he  wished  to  fix  the 
charge  of  murder  on  Mr.  Stephen  White. 
Both  of  these  prove  his  own  guilt. 

I  think  you  will  be  of  opinion,  that 
Brown  Street  was  a  probable  place  for 
the  conspirators  to  assemble,  and  for  an 
aid  to  be  stationed.  If  we  knew  their 
whole  plan,  and  if  we  were  skilled  to 
judge  in  such  a  case,  then  we  could  per 
haps  determine  on  this  point  better. 
But  it  is  a  retired  place,  and  still  com 
mands  a  full  view  of  the  house ;  a  lonely 
place,  but  still  a  place  of  observation. 
Not  so  lonely  that  a  person  would  excite 
suspicion  to  be  seen  walking  there  in  an 
ordinary  manner;  not  so  public  as  to  be 
noticed  by  many.  It  is  near  enough  to 
the  scene  of  action  in  point  of  law.  It 
was  their  point  of  centrality.  The  club 
was  found  near  the  spot,  in  a  place  pro 
vided  for  it,  in  a  place  that  had  been 
previously  hunted  out,  in  a  concerted 
place  of  concealment.  Here  was  their 


point  of  rendezvous.  Here  might  the 
lights  be  seen.  Here  might  an  aid  be 
secreted.  Here  was  he  within  call. 
Here  might  he  be  aroused  by  the  sound 
of  the  whistle.  Here  might  he  carry  the 
weapon.  Here  might  he  receive  the 
murderer  after  the  murder. 

Then,  Gentlemen,  the  general  ques 
tion  occurs,  Is  it  satisfactorily  proved, 
by  all  these  facts  and  circumstances, 
that  the  defendant  was  in  and  about 
Brown  Street  on  the  night  of  the  mur 
der?  Considering  that  the  murder  was 
effected  by  a  conspiracy;  considering 
that  he  was  one  of  the  four  conspirators; 
considering  that  two  of  the  conspirators 
have  accounted  for  themselves  on  the 
night  of  the  murder,  and  were  not  in 
Brown  Street;  considering  that  the  pris 
oner  does  not  account  for  himself,  nor 
show  where  he  was;  considering  that 
Richard  Crowninshield,  the  other  con 
spirator  and  the  perpetrator,  is  not  ac 
counted  for,  nor  shown  to  be  elsewhere; 
considering  that  it  is  now  past  all  doubt 
that  two  persons  were  seen  lurking  in 
and  about  Brown  Street  at  different 
times,  avoiding  observation,  and  excit 
ing  so  much  suspicion  that  the  neigh 
bors  actually  watched  them ;  considering 
that,  if  these  persons  thus  lurking  in 
Brown  Street  at  that  hour  were  not  the 
murderers,  it  remains  to  this  day  wholly 
unknown  who  they  were  or  what  their 
business  was;  considering  the  testimony 
of  Miss  Jaqueth,  and  that  the  club  was 
afterwards  found  near  this  place ;  consid 
ering,  finally,  that  Webster  and  South- 
wick  saw  these  persons,  and  then  took 
one  of  them  for  the  defendant,  and  that 
Southwick  then  told  his  wife  so,  and 
that  Bray  and  Mirick  examined  them 
closely,  and  now  swear  to  their  belief 
that  the  prisoner  was  one  of  them ;  —  it 
is  for  you  to  say,  putting  these  consider 
ations  together,  whether  you  believe  the 
prisoner  was  actually  in  Brown  Street 
at  the  time  of  the  murder. 

By  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner,  much 
stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  question, 
whether  Brown  Street  was  a  place  in 
which  aid  could  be  given,  a  place  in 
which  actual  assistance  could  be  ren 
dered  in  this  transaction.  This  must  be 


220 


THE  MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


mainly  decided  by  their  own  opinion 
who  selected  the  place;  by  what  they 
thought  at  the  time,  according  to  their 
plan  of  operation. 

If  it  was  agreed  that  the  prisoner 
should  be  there  to  assist,  it  is  enough. 
If  they  thought  the  place  proper  for  their 
purpose,  according  to  their  plan,  it  is 
sufficient.  Suppose  we  could  prove  ex 
pressly  that  they  agreed  that  Frank 
should  be  there,  and  he  was  there,  and 
you  should  think  it  not  a  well-chosen 
place  for  aiding  and  abetting,  must  he 
be  acquitted?  No!  It  is  not  what  / 
think  or  you  think  of  the  appropriate 
ness  of  the  place ;  it  is  what  they  thought 
at  the  lime.  If  the  prisoner  was  in 
Brown  Street  by  appointment  and  agree 
ment  with  the  perpetrator,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  giving  assistance  if  assistance 
should  be  needed,  it  may  safely  be  pre 
sumed  that  the  place  was  suited  to  such 
assistance  as  it  was  supposed  by  the  par 
ties  might  chance  to  become  requisite. 

If  in  Brown  Street,  was  he  there  by 
appointment?  was  he  there  to  aid,  if 
aid  were  necessary?  was  he  there  for, 
or  against,  the  murderer  ?  to  concur,  or 
to  oppose  ?  to  favor,  or  to  thwart  ?  Did 
the  perpetrator  know  he  was  there,  there 
waiting  ?  If  so,  then  it  follows  that  he 
was  there  by  appointment.  He  was  at 
the  post  half  an  hour;  he  was  waiting 
for  somebody.  This  proves  appoint 
ment,  arrangement,  previous  agreement ; 
then  it  follows  that  he  was  there  to  aid, 
to  encourage,  to  embolden  the  perpetra 
tor;  and  that  is  enough.  If  he  were  in 
such  a  situation  as  to  afford  aid,  or  that 
he  was  relied  upon  for  aid,  then  he  was 
aiding  and  abetting.  It  is  enough  that 
the  conspirator  desired  to  have  him 
there.  Besides,  it  may  be  well  said,  that 
he  could  afford  just  as  much  aid  there  as 
if  he  had  been  in  Essex  Street,  as  if  he 
had  been  standing  even  at  the  gate,  or 
at  the  window.  It  was  not  an  act  of 
power  against  power  that  was  to  be  done ; 
it  was  a  secret  act,  to  be  done  by  stealth. 
The  aid  was  to  be  placed  in  a  position 
secure  from  observation.  It  was  impor 
tant  to  the  security  of  both  that  he 
should  be  in  a  lonely  place.  Xow  it  is 
obvious  that  there  are  many  purposes 


for    which    he    might    be    in     Brown 
Street. 

1.  Richard  Crowninshield  might  have 
been  secreted  in  the  garden,  and  wait 
ing  for  a  Signal: 

2.  Or  he  might  be  in  Brown  Street  to 
advise  him  as  to  the  time  of  making  his 
entry  into  the  house ; 

3.  Or  to  favor  his  escape; 

4.  Or  to  see  if  the  street  was  clear 
when  he  came  out ; 

5.  Or  to  conceal  the  weapon  or  the 
clothes ; 

6.  To  be  ready  for  any  unforeseen 
contingency. 

Richard  Crowninshield  lived  in  Dan- 
vers.  He  would  retire  by  the  most  se 
cret  way.  Brown  Street  is  that  way. 
If  you  find  him  there,  can  you  doubt 
why  he  was  there? 

If,  Gentlemen,  the  prisoner  went  into 
Brown  Street,  by  appointment  with  the 
perpetrator,  to  render  aid  or  encourage 
ment  in  any  of  these  ways,  he  was  pres 
ent,  in  legal  contemplation,  aiding  and 
abetting  in  this  murder.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  he  should  have  done  any 
thing ;  it  is  enough  that  he  was  ready  to 
act,  and  in  a  place  to  act.  If  his  being 
in  Brown  Street,  by  appointment,  at  the 
time  of  the  murder,  emboldened  the 
purpose  and  encouraged  the  heart  of  the 
murderer,  by  the  hope  of  instant  aid,  if 
aid  should  become  necessary,  then,  with 
out  doubt,  he  was  present,  aiding  and 
abetting,  and  was  a  principal  in  the 
murder. 

I  now  proceed,  Gentlemen,  to  the  con 
sideration  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Colman.  Although  this  evidence  bears 
on  every  material  part  of  the  cause,  I 
have  purposely  avoided  every  comment 
on  it  till  the  present  moment,  when  I 
have  done  with  the  other  evidence  in  the 
case.  As  to  the  admission  of  this  evi 
dence,  there  has  been  a  great  struggle, 
and  its  importance  demanded  it.  The 
general  rule  of  law  is,  that  confessions 
are  to  be  received  as  evidence.  They 
are  entitled  to  great  or  to  little  consid 
eration,  according  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  are  made.  Voluntary, 
deliberate  confessions  are  the  most  iin- 


THE   MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


221 


portant  and  satisfactory  evidence,  but 
confessions  hastily  made,  or  improperly 
obtained,  are  entitled  to  little  or  no  con 
sideration.  It  is  always  to  be  inquired, 
whether  they  were  purely  voluntary,  or 
were  made  under  any  undue  influence 
of  hope  or  fear ;  for,  in  general,  if  any 
influence  were  exerted  on  the  mind  of 
the  person  confessing,  such  confessions 
are  not  to  be  submitted  to  a  jury. 

Who  is  Mr.  Colman  ?  He  is  an  intelli 
gent,  accurate,  and  cautious  witness;  a 
gentleman  of  high  and  well-known  char 
acter,  and  of  unquestionable  veracity; 
as  a  clergyman,  highly  respectable;  as 
a  man,  of  fair  name  and  fame. 

Why  was  Mr.  Colman  with  the  pris 
oner  ?  Joseph  J.  Knapp  was  his  parish 
ioner;  he  was  the  head  of  a  family,  and 
had  been  married  by  Mr.  Colman.  The 
interests  of  that  family  were  dear  to  him. 
He  felt  for  their  afflictions,  and  was 
anxious  to  alleviate  their  sufferings.  He 
went  from  the  purest  and  best  of  mo 
tives  to  visit  Joseph  Knapp.  He  came 
to  save,  not  to  destroy;  to  rescue,  not 
to  take  away  life.  In  this  family  he 
thought  there  might  be  a  chance  to  save 
one.  It  is  a  misconstruction  of  Mr. 
Colman's  motives,  at  once  the  most 
strange  and  the  most  uncharitable,  a 
perversion  of  all  just  views  of  his  con 
duct  and  intentions  the  most  unaccount 
able,  to  represent  him  as  acting,  on  this 
occasion,  in  hostility  to  any  one,  or  as 
desirous  of  injuring  or  endangering  any 
one.  He  has  stated  his  own  motives, 
and  his  own  conduct,  in  a  manner  to 
command  universal  belief  and  universal 
respect.  For  intelligence,  for  consist 
ency,  for  accuracy,  for  caution,  for  can 
dor,  never  did  witness  acquit  himself 
better,  or  stand  fairer.  In  all  that  he 
did  as  a  man,  and  all  he  has  said  as  a 
witness,  he  has  shown  himself  worthy  of 
entire  regard. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  very  important  con 
fessions  made  by  the  prisoner  are  sworn 
to  by  Mr.  Colman.  They  were  made  in 
the  prisoner's  cell,  where  Mr.  Colman 
had  gone  with  the  prisoner's  brother, 
N.  Phippen  Knapp.  Whatever  conver 
sation  took  place  was  in  the  presence  of 
N.  P.  Knapp.  Now,  on  the  part  of  the 


prisoner,  two  things  are  asserted;  first, 
that  such  inducements  were  suggested  to 
the  prisoner,  in  this  interview,  that  no 
confessions  made  by  him  ought  to  be 
received;  second,  that,  in  point  of  fact, 
he  made  no  such  confessions  as  Mr. 
Colman  testifies  to,  nor,  indeed,  any 
confessions  at  all.  These  two  proposi 
tions  are  attempted  to  be  supported  by 
the  testimony  of  N.  P.  Knapp.  These 
two  witnesses,  Mr.  Colman  and  N.  P. 
Knapp,  differ  entirely.  There  is  no 
possibility  of  reconciling  them.  No 
charity  can  cover  both.  One  or  the 
other  has  sworn  falsely.  If  N.  P. 
Knapp  be  believed,  Mr.  Colman's  testi 
mony  must  be  wholly  disregarded.  It 
is,  then,  a  question  of  credit,  a  question 
of  belief  between  the  two  witnesses. 
As  you  decide  between  these,  so  you 
will  decide  on  all  this  part  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Colman  has  given  you  a  plain 
narrative,  a  consistent  account,  and  has 
uniformly  stated  the  same  things.  He 
is  not  contradicted,  except  by  the  testi 
mony  of  Phippen  Knapp.  He  is  influ 
enced,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  by  no 
bias,  or  prejudice,  any  more  than  other 
men,  except  so  far  as  his  character  is 
now  at  stake.  He  has  feelings  on  this 
point,  doubtless,  and  ought  to  have.  If 
what  he  has  stated  be  not  true,  I  cannot 
see  any  ground  for  his  escape.  If  he  be 
a  true  man,  he  must  have  heard  what 
he  testifies.  No  treachery  of  memory 
brings  to  memory  things  that  never  took 
place.  There  is  no  reconciling  his  evi 
dence  with  good  intention,  if  the  facts 
in  it  are  not  as  he  states  them.  He  is  on 
trial  as  to  his  veracity. 

The  relation  in  which  the  other  wit 
ness  stands  deserves  your  careful  consid 
eration.  He  is  a  member  of  the  family. 
He  has  the  lives  of  two  brothers  de 
pending,  as  he  may  think,  on  the  effect 
of  his  evidence;  depending  on  every 
word  he  speaks.  I  hope  he  has  not  an 
other  responsibility  resting  upon  him. 
By  the  advice  of  a  friend,  and  that 
friend  Mr.  Colman,  J.  Knapp  made  a 
full  and  free  confession,  and  obtained  a 
promise  of  pardon.  He  has  since,  as 
you  know,  probably  by  the  advice  of 
other  friends,  retracted  that  confession, 


222 


THE  MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


and  rejected  the  offered  pardon.  Events 
will  show  who  of  these  friends  and  ad 
visers  advised  him  best,  and  befriended 
him  most.  In  the  mean  time,  if  this 
brother,  the  witness,  be  one  of  these 
advisers,  and  advised  the  retraction,  he 
has,  most  emphatically,  the  lives  of  his 
brothers  resting  upon  his  evidence  and 
upon  his  conduct.  Compare  the  situa 
tion  of  these  two  witnesses.  Do  you 
not  see  mighty  motive  enough  on  the 
one  side,  and  want  of  all  motive  on  the 
other?  I  would  gladly  find  an  apology 
for  that  witness,  in  his  agonized  feel 
ings,  in  his  distressed  situation ;  in  the 
agitation  of  that  hour,  or  of  this.  I 
would  gladly  impute  it  to  error,  or  to 
want  of  recollection,  to  confusion  of 
mind,  or  disturbance  of  feeling.  I 
would  gladly  impute  to  any  pardonable 
source  that  which  cannot  be  reconciled 
to  facts  and  to  truth ;  but,  even  in  a  case 
calling  for  so  much  sympathy,  justice 
must  yet  prevail,  and  we  must  come  to 
the  conclusion,  however  reluctantly, 
which  that  demands  from  us. 

It  is  said,  Phippen  Knapp  was  prob 
ably  correct,  because  he  knew  he  should 
probably  be  called  as  a  witness.  Wit 
ness  to  what?  When  he  says  there  was 
no  confession,  what  could  he  expect  to 
bear  witness  of?  But  I  do  not  put  it  on 
the  ground  that  he  did  not  hear;  I  am 
compelled  to  put  it  on  the  other  ground, 
that  he  did  hear,  and  does  not  now  truly 
tell  what  he  heard. 

If  Mr.  Colman  were  out  of  the  case, 
there  are  other  reasons  why  the  story  of 
Phippen  Knapp  should  not  be  believed. 
It  has  in  it  inherent  improbabilities.  It 
is  unnatural,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
accompanying  circumstances.  He  tells 
you  that  they  went  "  to  the  cell  of  Frank, 
to  see  if  he  had  any  objection  to  taking 
a  trial,  and  suffering  his  brother  to 
accept  the  offer  of  pardon";  in  other 
words,  to  obtain  Frank's  consent  to  Jo 
seph's  making  a  confession ;  and  in  case 
this  consent  was  not  obtained,  that  the 
pardon  would  be  offered  to  Frank.  Did 
they  bandy  about  the  chance  of  life,  be 
tween  these  two,  in  this  way?  Did  Mr. 
Colman,  after  having  given  this  pledge 
to  Joseph,  and  after  having  received  a 


disclosure  from  Joseph,  go  to  the  cell  of 
Frank  for  such  a  purpose  as  this?  It  is 
impossible;  it  cannot  be  so. 

Again,  we  know  that  Mr.  Colman 
found  th%  club  the  next  day;  that  he 
went  directly  to  the  place  of  deposit, 
and  found  it  at  the  first  attempt,  exactly 
where  he  says  he  had  been  informed  it 
was.  Now  Phippen  Knapp  says,  that 
Frank  had  stated  nothing  respecting  the 
club ;  that  it  was  not  mentioned  in  that 
conversation .,  He  says,  also,  that  he 
was  present  in  the  cell  of  Joseph  all  the 
time  that  Mr.  Colman  was  there;  that 
he  believes  he  heard  all  that  was  said  in 
Joseph's  cell;  and  that  he  did  not  him 
self  know  where  the  club  was,  and  never 
had  known  where  it  was,  until  he  heard 
it  stated  in  court.  Now  it  is  certain 
that  Mr.  Colman  says  he  did  not  learn 
the  particular  place  of  deposit  of  the 
club  from  Joseph ;  that  he  only  learned 
from  him  that  it  was  deposited  under 
the  steps  of  the  Howard  Street  meeting 
house,  without  defining  the  particular 
steps.  It  is  certain,  also,  that  he  had 
more  knowledge  of  the  position  of  the 
club  than  this;  else  how  could  he  have 
placed  his  hand  on  it  so  readily?  and 
where  else  could  he  have  obtained  this 
knowledge,  except  from  Frank? 

Here  Mr.  Dexter  said  that  Mr.  Colman 
had  had  other  interviews  with  Joseph,  and 
might  have  derived  the  information  from 
him  at  previous  visits.  Mr.  AVebster  re 
plied,  that  Mr.  Colman  had  testified  that  he 
learned  nothing  in  relation  to  the  club  until 
this  visit.  Mr.  Dexter  denied  there  being 
any  such  testimony.  Mr.  Colman's  evi 
dence  was  read,  from  the  notes  of  the  judges, 
and  several  other  persons,  and  Mr.  Webster 
then  proceeded. 

My  point  is  to  show  that  Phippen 
Knapp's  story  is  not  true,  is  not  consist 
ent  with  itself;  that,  taking  it  for  grant 
ed,  as  he  says,  that  he  heard  all  that  was 
said  to  Mr.  Colman  in  both  cells,  by  Jo 
seph  and  by  Frank ;  and  that  Joseph  did 
not  state  particularly  where  the  club  was 
deposited;  and  that  he  knew  as  much 
about  the  place  of  deposit  of  the  club  as 
Mr.  Colman  knew;  why,  then  Mr.  Col 
man  must  either  have  been  miraculously 
informed  respecting  the  club,  or  Phippen 


THE  MURDER  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH   WHITE. 


223 


Knapp  has  not  told  you  the  whole  truth. 
There  is  no  reconciling  this,  without 
supposing  that  Mr.  Colman  has  misrep 
resented  what  took  place  in  Joseph's  cell, 
as  well  as  what  took  place  in  Frank's  cell. 

Again,  Phippen  Knapp  is  directly 
contradicted  by  Mr.  Wheatland.  Mr. 
Wheatland  tells  the  same  story,  as  com 
ing  from  Phippen  Knapp,  that  Colman 
now  tells.  Here  there  are  two  against 
one.  Phippen  Knapp  says  that  Frank 
made  no  confessions,  and  that  he  said 
he  had  none  to  make.  In  this  he  is  con 
tradicted  by  Wheatland.  He,  Phippen 
Knapp,  told  Wheatland,  that  Mr.  Col 
man  did  ask  Frank  some  questions,  and 
that  Frank  answered  them.  He  told  him 
also  what  these  answers  were.  Wheat- 
land  does  not  recollect  the  questions  or 
answers,  but  recollects  his  reply;  which 
was,  "Is  not  this  premature ?  I  think 
this  answer  is  sufficient  to  make  Frank 
a  principal."  Here  Phippen  Knapp 
opposes  himself  to  Wheatland,  as  well  as 
to  Mr.  Colman.  Do  you  believe  Phip 
pen  Knapp  against  these  two  respectable 
witnesses,  or  them  against  him? 

Is  not  Mr.  Colman's  testimony  credi 
ble,  natural,  and  proper?  To  judge  of 
this,  you  must  go  back  to  that  scene. 

The  murder  had  been  committed ;  the 
two  Knapps  were  now  arrested;  four 
persons  were  already  in  jail  supposed  to 
be  concerned  in  it,  the  Crowninshields, 
and  Selman,  and  Chase.  Another  per 
son  at  the  Eastward  was  supposed  to  be 
in  the  plot ;  it  was  important  to  learn  the 
facts.  To  do  this,  some  one  of  those 
suspected  must  be  admitted  to  turn 
state's  witness.  The  contest  was,  W^ho 
should  have  this  privilege?  It  was  un 
derstood  that  it  was  about  to  be  offered 
to  Palmer,  then  in  Maine;  there  was  no 
good  reason  why  he  should  have  the 
preference.  Mr.  Colman  felt  interested 
for  the  family  of  the  Knapps,  and  par 
ticularly  for  Joseph.  He  was  a  young 
man  who  had  hitherto  maintained  a  fail- 
standing  in  society ;  he  was  a  husband. 
Mr.  Colman  was  particularly  intimate 
with  his  family.  With  these  views  he 
went  to  the  prison.  He  believed  that 
he  might  safely  converse  with  the  pris 
oner,  because  he  thought  confessions 


made  to  a  clergyman  were  sacred,  and 
that  he  could  not  be  called  upon  to  dis 
close  them.  He  went,  the  first  time,  in 
the  morning,  and  was  requested  to  come 
again.  He  wrent  again  at  three  o'clock ; 
and  was  requested  to  call  again  at  five 
o'clock.  In  the  mean  time  he  saw  the 
father  and  Phippen,  and  they  wished  he 
would  not  go  again,  because  it  would  be 
said  the  prisoners  were  making  confes 
sion.  He  said  he  had  engaged  to  go 
again  at  five  o'clock;  but  would  not,  if 
Phippen  would  excuse  him  to  Joseph. 
Phippen  engaged  to  do  this,  and  to  meet 
him  at  his  office  at  five  o'clock.  Mr. 
Colman  went  to  the  office  at  the  time, 
and  waited;  but,  as  Phippen  was  not 
there,  he  walked  down  street,  and  saw 
him  coming  from  the  jail.  He  met 
him,  and  while  in  conversation  near  the 
church,  he  saw  Mrs.  Beckford  and  Mrs. 
Knapp  going  in  a  chaise  towards  the 
jail.  He  hastened  to  meet  them,  as  he 
thought  it  not  proper  for  them  to  go  in 
at  that  time.  While  conversing  with 
them  near  the  jail,  he  received  two 
distinct  messages  from  Joseph,  that  he 
wished  to  see  him.  He  thought  it  proper 
to  go;  and  accordingly  went  to  Joseph's 
cell,  and  it  was  while  there  that  the  dis 
closures  were  made.  Before  Joseph  had 
finished  his  statement,  Phippen  came  to 
the  door;  he  was  soon  after  admitted. 
A  short  interval  ensued,  and  they  went 
together  to  the  cell  of  Frank.  Mr.  Col 
man  went  in  by  invitation  of  Phippen ; 
he  had  come  directly  from  the  cell  of 
Joseph,  where  he  had  for  the  first  time 
learned  the  incidents  of  the  tragedy. 
He  was  incredulous  as  to  some  of  the 
facts  which  he  had  learned,  they  were 
so  different  from  his  previous  impres 
sions.  He  was  desirous  of  knowing 
whether  he  could  place  confidence  in 
what  Joseph  had  told  him.  He,  there 
fore,  put  the  questions  to  Frank,  as  he 
has  testified  before  you;  in  answer  to 
which  Frank  Knapp  informed  him,  — 

1.  "  That  the  murder  took  place  be 
tween  ten  and  eleven  o'clock." 

2.  "  That  Richard  Crowninshield  was 
alone  in  the  house." 

3.  "That    he,    Frank   Knapp,   went 
home  afterwards." 


224 


THE   MURDER   OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


4.  "  That    the    club    was    deposited 
under  the  steps  of  the  Howard  Street 
meeting-house,  and  under  the  part  near 
est  the  bnrying-ground,  in  a  rat  hole." 

5.  "  That  the  dagger  or  daggers  had 
been  worked  up  at  the  factory." 

It  is  said  that  these  five  answers  just 
fit  the  case;  that  they  are  just  what 
was  wanted,  and  neither  more  nor  less. 
True,  they  are;  but  the  reason  is,  be 
cause  truth  always  fits.  Truth  is  always 
congruous,  and  agrees  with  itself:  every 
truth  in  the  universe  agrees  with  every 
other  truth  in  the  universe;  whereas 
falsehoods  not  only  disagree  with  truths, 
but  usually  quarrel  among  themselves. 
Surely  Mr.  Colman  is  influenced  by  no 
bias,  no  prejudice;  he  has  no  feelings  to 
warp  him,  except,  now  that  he  is  con 
tradicted,  he  may  feel  an  interest  to  be 
believed. 

If  you  believe  Mr.  Colman,  then  the 
evidence  is  fairly  in  the  case. 

I  shall  now  proceed  on  the  ground 
that  you  do  believe  Mr.  Colman. 

When  told  that  Joseph  had  deter 
mined  to  confess,  the  defendant  said,  "  It 
is  hard,  or  unfair,  that  Joseph  should 
have  the  benefit  of  confessing,  since  the 
thing  was  done  for  his  benefit."  What 
thing  was  done  for  his  benefit?  Does 
not  this  carry  an  implication  of  the  guilt 
of  the  defendant?  Does  it  not  show 
that  he  had  a  knowledge  of  the  object 
and  history  of  the  murder? 

The  defendant  said,  "I  told  Joseph, 
when  he  proposed  it,  that  it  was  a  silly 
business,  and  would  get  us  into  trouble." 
He  knew,  then,  what  this  business  was; 
he  knew  that  Joseph  proposed  it,  and 
that  he  agreed  to  it,  else  he  could  not 
get  us  into  troubla;  he  understood  its 
bearing  and  its  consequences.  Thus 
much  was  said,  under  circumstances 
that  make  it  clearly  evidence  against 
him,  before  there  is  any  pretence  of  an 
inducement  held  out.  And  does  not 
this  prove  him  to  have  had  a  knowledge 
of  the  conspiracy? 

He  knew  the  daggers  had  been  de 
stroyed,  and  he  knew  who  committed 
the  murder.  How  could  he  have  inno 
cently  known  these  facts?  Why,  if  by 
Richard's  story,  this  shows  him  guilty 


of  a  knowledge  of  the  murder,  and  of 
the  conspiracy.  More  than  all,  he  knew 
when  the  deed  was  done,  and  that  he 
went  home  afterwards.  This  shows  his 
participation  in  that  deed.  ' '  Went  home 
afterwards  " !  Home,  from  what  scene? 
home,  from  what  fact?  home,  from  what 
transaction?  home,  from  what  place? 
This  confirms  the  supposition  that  the 
prisoner  was  in  Brown  Street  for  the 
purposes  ascribed  to  him.  These  ques 
tions  were  directly  put,  and  directly 
answered.  He  does  not  intimate  that 
he  received  the  information  from  an 
other.  Now,  if  he  knows  the  time,  and 
went  home  afterwards,  and  does  not  ex 
cuse  himself,  is  not  this  an  admission 
that  he  had  a  hand  in  this  murder? 
Already  proved  to  be  a  conspirator  in 
the  murder,  he  now  confesses  that  he 
knew  who  did  it,  at  what  time  it  was 
done,  that  he  was  himself  out  of  his  own 
house  at  the  time,  and  went  home  after 
wards.  Is  not  this  conclusive,  if  not 
explained?  Then  comes  the  club.  He 
told  where  it  was.  This  is  like  posses 
sion  of  stolen  goods.  He  is  charged 
with  the  guilty  knowledge  of  this  con 
cealment.  He  must  show,  not  say,  how 
he  came  by  this  knowledge.  If  a  man 
be  found  with  stolen  goods,  he  must 
prove  how  he  came  by  them.  The  place 
of  deposit  of  the  club  was  premedi 
tated  and  selected,  and  he  knew  where 
it  was. 

Joseph  Knapp  was  an  accessory,  and 
an  accessory  only;  he  knew  only  what 
was  told  him.  But  the  prisoner  knew 
the  particular  spot  in  which  the  club 
might  be  found.  This  shows  his  knowl 
edge  something  more  than  that  of  an 
accessory.  This  presumption  must  be 
rebutted  by  evidence,  or  it  stands  strong 
against  him.  He  has  too  much  knowl 
edge  of  this  transaction  to  have  come 
innocently  by  it.  It  must  stand  against 
him  until  he  explains  it. 

This  testimony  of  Mr.  Colman  is  rep 
resented  as  new  matter,  and  therefore 
an  attempt  has  been  made  to  excite  a 
prejudice  against  it.  It  is  not  so.  How 
little  is  there  in  it,  after  all,  that  did 
not  appear  from  other  sources?  It  is 
mainly  confirmatory.  Compare  what 


THE   MURDER  OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


225 


you  learn  from  this  confession  with  what 
you  before  knew. 

As  to  its  being  proposed  by  Joseph,  was 
not  that  known? 

As  to  Richard's  being  alone  in  the 
house,  was  not  that  known? 

As  to  the  daggers,  was  not  that 
known? 

As  to  the  time  of  the  murder,  was 
not  that  known? 

As  to  his  being  out  that  night,  was 
not  that  known? 

As  to  his  returning  afterwards,  was 
not  that  known? 

As  to  the  club,  was  not  that  known? 

So  this  information  confirms  what 
was  known  before,  and  fully  confirms 
it. 

One  word  as  to  the  interview  between 
Mr.  Colman  and  Phippen  Knapp  on  the 
turnpike.  It  is  said  that  Mr.  Colman's 
conduct  in  this  matter  is  inconsistent  with 
his  testimony.  There  does  not  appear 
to  me  to  be  any  inconsistency.  He  tells 
you  that  his  object  was  to  save  Joseph, 
and  to  hurt  no  one,  and  least  of  all  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  He  had  probably 
told  Mr.  White  the  substance  of  what 
he  heard  at  the  prison.  He  had 
probably  told  him  that  Frank  confirmed 
what  Joseph  had  confessed.  He  was 
unwilling  to  be  the  instrument  of  harm 
to  Frank.  He  therefore,  at  the  request 
of  Phippen  Knapp,  wrote  a  note  to  Mr. 
White,  requesting  him  to  consider  Jo 
seph  as  authority  for  the  information  he 
had  received.  He  tells  you  that  this  is 
the  only  thing  he  has  to  regret,  as  it 
may  seem  to  be  an  evasion,  as  he  doubts 
whether  it  was  entirely  correct.  If  it 
was  an  evasion,  if  it  was  a  deviation,  if 
it  was  an  error,  it  was  an  error  of  mercy, 
an  error  of  kindness, — an  error  that 
proves  he  had  no  hostility  to  the  pris 
oner  at  the  bar.  It  does  not  in  the 
least  vary  his  testimony,  or  affect  its 
correctness.  Gentlemen,  I  look  on  the 
evidence  of  Mr.  Colman  as  highly  im 
portant  ;  not  as  bringing  into  the  cause 
new  facts,  but  as  confirming,  in  a  very 
satisfactory  manner,  other  evidence.  It 
is  incredible  that  he  can  be  false,  and 
that  he  is  seeking  the  prisoner's  life 
through  false  swearing.  If  he  is  true, 


15 


it  is  incredible  that  the  prisoner  can  be 
innocent. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  gone  through  with 
the  evidence  in  this  case,  and  have  en 
deavored  to  state  it  plainly  and  fairly 
before  you.  I  think  there  are  conclu 
sions  to  be  drawn  from  it,  the  accuracy 
of  which  you  cannot  doubt.  I  think 
you  cannot  doubt  that  there  was  a 
conspiracy  formed  for  the  purpose  of 
committing  this  murder,  and  who  the 
conspirators  were: 

That  you  cannot  doubt  that  the 
Crowninshields  and  the  Knapps  were 
the  parties  in  this  conspiracy: 

That  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  pris 
oner  at  the  bar  knew  that  the  murder 
was  to  be  done  on  the  night  of  the  6th 
of  April: 

That  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  mur 
derers  of  Captain  White  were  the  suspi 
cious  persons  seen  in  and  about  Brown 
Street  on  that  night: 

That  you  cannot  doubt  that  Richard 
Crowninshield  was  the  perpetrator  of 
that  crime: 

That  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  pris 
oner  at  the  bar  was  in  Brown  Street  on 
that  night. 

If  there,  then  it  must  be  by  agree 
ment,  to  countenance,  to  aid  the  perpe 
trator.  And  if  so,  then  he  is  guilty  as 

PRINCIPAL. 

~  Gentlemen,  your  whole  concern  should 
be  to  do  your  duty,  and  leave  consequen 
ces  to  take  care  of  themselves.  You 
will  receive  the  law  from  the  court. 
Your  verdict,  it  is  true,  may  endanger 
the  prisoner's  life,  but  then  it  is  to 
save  other  lives.  If  the  prisoner's  guilt 
has  been  shown  and  .proved  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt,  you  will  convict  him. 
If  such  reasonable  doubts  of  guilt  still 
remain,  you  will  acquit  him.  You  are 
the  judges  of  the  whole  case.  You  owe 
a  duty  to  the  public,  as  well  as  to  the  pris 
oner  at  the  bar.  You  cannot  presume 
to  be  wiser  than  the  law.  Your  duty 
is  a  plain,  straightforward  one.  Doubt 
less  we  would  all  judge  him  in  mercy. 
Towards  him,  as  an  individual,  the  law 
inculcates  no  hostility;  but  towards  him, 
if  proved  to  be  a  murderer,  the  law,  and 


226 


THE  MURDER   OF   CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  WHITE. 


the  oaths  you  have  taken,  and  public 
justice,  demand  that  you  do  your  duty. 

With  consciences  satisfied  with  the 
discharge  of  duty,  no  consequences  can 
harm  you.  There  is  jio  evil  that  we 
cannot  either  face  or  fly  from,  but  the 
consciousness  of  duty  disregarded.  A 
sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever.  It  is  om 
nipresent,  like  the  Deity.  If  we  take  to 
ourselves  the  wings  of  the  morning,  and 
dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea, 
duty  performed,  or  duty  violated,  is  still 
with  us,  for  our  happiness  or  our  mis 


ery.  If  we  say  the  darkness  shall  coyer 
us,  in  the  darkness  as  in  the  light  our 
obligations  are  yet  with  us.  We  can 
not  escape  their  power,  nor  fly  from  their 
presence.  They  are  with  us  in  this  life, 
will  be  with  us  at  its  close;  and  in  that 
scene  of  inconceivable  solemnity,  which 
lies  yet  farther  onward,  we  shall  still 
find  ourselves  surrounded  by  the  con 
sciousness  of  duty,  to  pain  us  wherever 
it  has  been  violated,  and  to  console  us 
so  far  as  God  may  have  given  us  grace 
to  perform' it. 


THE   REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON   "FOOT'S  RESOLUTION,"   DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF 
THE  UNITED   STATES,  ON  THE  26TH  AND  27iH  OF  JANUARY,  1830. 


[MR.  WEBSTER  having  completed  on  Jan 
uary  20th  his  first  speech  on  Foot's  resolu 
tion,  Mr.  Benton  spoke  in  reply,  on  the 
20th  and  21st  of  January,  1830.  Mr.  Hayne 
of  South  Carolina  followed  on  the  same 
side,  but,  after  some  time,  gave  way  for  a 
motion  for  adjournment.  On  Monday,  the 
25th,  Mr.  Hayne  resumed,  and  concluded 
his  argument.  Mr.  Webster  immediately 
rose  in  reply,  but  yielded  the  floor  for  a 
motion  for  adjournment. 

The  next  day  (20th  January,  1830)  Mr. 
Webster  took  the  floor  and  delivered  the 
following  speech,  which  has  given  such 
great  celebrity  to  the  debate.  The  circum 
stances  connected  with  this  remarkable  ef 
fort  of  parliamentary  eloquence  are  vividly 
set  forth  in  Mr.  Everett's  Memoir,  prefixed  to 
the  first  volume  of  Mr.  Webster's  Works.] 


MR.   PRESIDENT,  —  When  the  mari 
ner  has  been  tossed  for  many  days  in 
I  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea, 
/ ,'  he  naturally  avails  himself  of  the  first 
\  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance 
of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  as 
certain  how  far  the  elements  have  driven 
him  from  his  true  course.     Let  us  imi 
tate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float 
farther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer 
to  the  point  from  which  we  departed, 
that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture 
where  we  now  are.     I  ask  for  the  reading 
of  the  resolution  before  the  Senate. 

The   Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
follows :  — 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report 
jj  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining  un 
sold  within  each  State  and  Territory,  and 
whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit  for  a  cer 
tain  period  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to 


such  lands  only  as  have  heretofore  been 
offered  for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to 
entry  at  the  minimum  price.  And,  also, 
whether  the  office  of  Surveyor-General,  and 
some  of  the  land  offices,  may  not  be  abol 
ished  without  detriment  to  the  public  inter 
est;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt 
measures  to  hasten  the  sales  and  extend 
more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  public 
lands." 

<—7      -v 

We  have  thus  heard,  Sir,  what  the  j 
resolution  is  which  is  actually  before  us 
for  consideration;  and  it  will  readily 
occur  to  every  one,  that  it  is  almost  the 
only  subject  about  which  something  has 
not  been  said  in  the  speech,  running 
through  two  days,  by  which  the  Senate 
has  been  entertained  by  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in 
Lhe  wide  range  of  our  public  affairs, 
whether  past  or  present,  —  every  thing, 
general  or  local,  whether  belonging  to 
national  politics  or  party  politics,  — 
seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of 
the  honorable  member's  attention,  save 
only  the  resolution  before  the  Senate. 
He  has  spoken  of  every  thing  but  the 
public  lands ;  they  have  escaped  his  no 
tice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his  excur 
sions,  he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold 
respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  Sir,  was  to  be  re 
sumed,  on  Thursday  morning,  it  so 
happened  that  it  would  have  been  con 
venient  for  me  to  be  elsewhere.  The  J 
honorable  member,  however,  did  not 
incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  an 
other  day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to 
return,  and  he  wished  to  discharge  it. 


228 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


That  shot,  Sir,  which  he  thus  kindly  in 
formed  us  was  coming,  that  we  might 
stand  out  of  the  way,  or  prepare  our 
selves  to  fall  by  it  and  die  with  decency, 
has  now  been  received.  Under  all  ad 
vantages,  and  with  expectation  awa 
kened  by  the  tone  which  preceded  it,  it 
has  been  discharged,  and  has  spent  its 
force.  It  may  become  me  to  say  no 
more  of  its  effect,  than  that,  if  nobody 
is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or 
wounded,  it  is  not  the  first  time,  in  the 
history  of  human  affairs,  that  the  vigor 
and  success  of  the  war  have  not  quite 
come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sounding  phrase 
of  the  manifesto.  • 

The  gentleman,'  Sir,  in  declining  to 
postpone  the  debate,  told  the  Senate, 
with  the  emphasis  of  his  hand  upon  his 
heart,  that  there  was  something  ran 
kling  here,  which  he  wished  to  relieve. 
[Mr.  Hayne  rose,  and  disclaimed  having 
used  the  word  rankling.']  It  would  not, 
Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable 
member  to  appeal  to  those  around  him, 
upon  the  question  whether  he  did  in 
fact  make  use  of  that  word.  But  he 
may  have  been  unconscious  of  it.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims 
it.  But  still,  with  or  without  the  use 
of  that  particular  word,  he  had  yet 
something  here,  he  said,  of  which  he 
wished  to  rid  himself  by  an  immediate 
reply.  In  this  respect,  Sir,  I  have  a 
great  advantage  over  the  honorable  gen 
tleman.  There  is  nothing  here,  Sir, 
which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness; 
neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which 
is  sometimes  more  troublesome  than 
either,  the  consciousness  of  having  been 
in  the  wrong.  There  is  nothing,  either 
originating  here,  or  now  received  here 
by  the  gentleman's  shot.  Nothing  origi 
nating  here,  for  I  had  not  the  slightest 
feeling  of  unkindness  towards  the  hon 
orable  member.  Some  passages,  it  is 
true,  had  occurred  since  our  acquaint 
ance  in  this  body,  which  I  could  have 
wished  might  have  been  otherwise ;  but 
I  had  used  philosophy  and  forgotten 
them.  I  paid  the  honorable  member 
the  attention  of  listening  with  respect  to 
his  first  speech;  and  when  he  sat  down, 
though  surprised,  and  I  must  even  say 


astonished,  at  some  of  his  opinions, 
nothing  was  farther  from  my  intention 
than  to  commence  any  personal  warfare. 
Through  the  whole  of  the  few  remarks 
I  made  m  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously 
and  carefully,  every  thing  which  I 
thought  possible  to  be  construed  into 
disrespect.  And,  Sir,  while  there  is 
thus  nothing  originating  here  which  I 
have  wished  at  any  time,  or  now  wish, 
to  discharge,  I  must  repeat,  also,  that 
nothing  has,  been  received  here  which 
rankles,  or  in  any  way  gives  me  annoy 
ance.  I  will  not  accuse  the  honorable 
member  of  violating  the  rules  of  civilized 
war ;  I  will  not  say,  that  he  poisoned  his 
arrows.  But  whether  his  shafts  were, 
or  were  not,  dipped  in  that  which  would 
have  caused  rankling  if  they  had  reached 
their  destination,  there  was  not,  as  it 
happened,  quite  strength  enough  in  the 
bow  to  bring  them  to  their  mark.  If 
he  wishes  now  to  gather  up  those  shafts, 
he  must  look  for  them  elsewhere;  they 
will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering  in 
the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  c^>m£lainjgd~T 
^that  I  had  slept  on  his  speech.  I  must  I 
have  slept  on  it,  or  nH, "slept  at  all.  The 
moment  the  honorable  member  sat  down, 
his  friend  from  Missouri  rose,  and,  with 
much  honeyed  commendation  of  the 
speech,  suggested  that  the  impressions 
which  it  had  produced  were  too  charm 
ing  and  delightful  to  be  disturbed  by 
other  sentiments  or  other  sounds,  and 
proposed  that  the  Senate  should  adjourn. 
Would  it  have  been  quite  amiable  in 
me,  Sir,  to  interrupt  this  excellent  good  _, 
feeling?  Must  I  not  have  been  abso 
lutely  malicious,  if  I  could  have  thrust 
myself  forward,  to  destroy  sensations 
thus  pleasing  ?  Was  it  not  much  better 
and  kinder,  both  to  sleep  upon  them 
myself,  and  to  allow  others  also  the 
pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them?  But 
if  it  be  meant,  by  sleeping  upon  his 
speech,  that  I  took  time  to  prepare  a 
reply  to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake.  Ow 
ing  to  other  engagements,  I  could  not 
employ  even  the  interval  between  the 
adjournment  of  the  Senate  and  its  meet 
ing  the  next  morning,  in  attention  to 
the  subject  of  this  debate.  Neverthe- 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


229 


less,    Sir,    the   mere   matter  of  fact  is 
r-  undoubtedly  true.     I  did  sleep  on  the 
1  gentleman^*  speech,  and  slept  soundly. 
HAnd  I  slept  equally  well  on  his  speech 
of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  reply 
ing.     It   is  quite  possible  that  in  this 
respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advantage 
over  the  honorable  member,  attributa 
ble,  doubtless,  to  a  cooler  temperament 
on  my  part;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept  upon 
his  speeches  remarkably  well. 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  lie 
was  made  the  object  of  such  a  reply. 
Why  was  he  singled  out  ?  If  an  attack 
has  been  made  on  the  East,  he,  he  as 
sures  us,  did  not  begin  it;  it  was  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir, 
I  answered  the  gentleman's  speech  be 
cause  I  happened  to  hear  it;  and  because, 
also,  I  chose  to  give  an  answer  to  that 
speech,  which,  if  unanswered.  I  thought 
most  likely  to  produce  injurious  impres 
sions.  I  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who 
was  the  original  drawer  of  the  bill.  I 
found  a  responsible  indorser  before  me, 
and  it  was  my  purpose  to  hold  him  lia 
ble,  and  to  bring  him  to  his  just  respon 
sibility,  without  delay.  But,  Sir,  this 
interrogatory  of  the  honorable  member 
was  only  introductory  to  another.  He 
proceeded  to  ask  me  whether  I  had 
turned  upon  him,  in  this  debate,  from 
the  consciousness  that  I  should  find  an 
overmatch,  if  I  ventured  on  a  contest 
With  his  friend  from  Missouri.  If,  Sir, 
the  honorable  member,  modesties  gratia, 
had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend, 
and  to  pay  him  a  compliment,  without 
intentional  disparagement  to  others,  it 
would  have  been  quite  according  to  the 
friendly  courtesies  of  debate,  and  not  at 
all  ungrateful  to  my  own  feelings.  I 
am  not  one  of  those,  Sir,  who  esteem 
any  tribute  of  regard,  whether  light  and 
occasional,  or  more  serious  and  delib 
erate,  which  may  be  bestowed  on  others, 
as  so  much  unjustly  withholden  from 
themselves.  But  the  tone  and  manner 
of  the  gentleman's  question  forbid  me 
thus  to  interpret  it.  I  am  not  at  liberty 
to  consider  it  as  nothing  more  than  a 
civility  to  his  friend.  It  had  an  air 
of  taunt  and  disparagement,  something 
of  the  loftiness  of  asserted  superiority, 


«— J 


which  does  not  allow  me  to  pass  it  over 
without  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  ques 
tion  for  me  to  answer,  and  so  put  as 
if  it  were  difficult  for  me  to  answer, 
whether  I  deemed  the  member  from 
Missouri  an  overmatch  for  myself  in 
debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  Sir,  that 
this  is  extraordinary  language,  and  an 
extraordinary  tone,  for  the  discussions 
of  this  body.  _ 

.Matches  and  overmatches  !  Those 
terms  are  more  applicable  elsewhere" 
than  here,  and  fitter  for  other  assem 
blies  than  this.  Sir,  the  gentleman 
seems  to  forget  where  and  what  we  are. 
This  is  a  Senate,  a  Senate  of  equals,  of 
men  of  individual  honor  and  personal 
character,  and  of  absolute  independence. 
We  know  no  masters,  we  acknowledge 
no  dictators.  This  is  a  hall  for  mutual 
consultation  and  discussion ;  not  an  are 
na  for  the  exhibition  of  champions.  I 
offer  myself,  Sir,  as  a  match  for  no  man ; 
I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at  no 
man's  feet.  But  then,  Sir,  since  the 
honorable  member  has  put  the  question 
in  a  manner  that  calls  for  an  answer,  I 
will  give  him  an  answer;  and  I  tell  him, 
that,  holding  myself  to  be  the  humblest 
of  the  members  here,  I  yet  know  noth 
ing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  Mis 
souri,  either  alone  or  \vhen  aided  by  the 
arm  of  his  friend  from  South  Carolina, 
that  need  deter  even  me  from  espousing 
whatever  opinions  I  may  choose  to  es 
pouse,  from  debating  whenever  I  may 
choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  what 
ever  I  may  see  fit  to  say,  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate.  Sir,  when  uttered  as  mat 
ter  of  commendation  or  compliment,  I 
should  dissent  from  nothing  which  the 
honorable  member  might  say  of  his 
friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth  any 
pretensions  of  my  own.  But  when  put 
to  me  as  matter  of  taunt,  I  throw  it 
back,  and  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  he 
could  possibly  say  nothing  less  likely 
than  such  a  comparison  to  wound  my 
pride  of  personal  character.  The  anger 
of  its  tone  rescued  the  remark  from 
intentional  irony,  which  otherwise,  prob 
ably,  would  have  been  its  general  accep 
tation.  But,  Sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that 
by  this  mutual  quotation  and  commen- 


230 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


dation;  if  it  be  supposed  that,  by  cast 
ing  the  characters  of  the  drama,  assign 
ing  to  each  his  part,  to  one  the  attack, 
to  another  the  cry  of  onset;  or  if  it  be 
thought  that,  by  a  loud  and  empty  vaunt 
of  anticipated  victory,  any  laurels  are  to 
be  won  here;  if  it  be  imagined,  espe 
cially,  that  any  or  all  these  things  will 
shake  any  purpose  of  mine,  — I  can  tell 
the  honorable  member,  once  for  all,  that 
he  is  greatly  mistaken,  and  that  he  is 
dealing  with  one  of  whose  temper  and 
character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn. 
Sir,  I  shall  not  allow  myself,  on  this 
occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion,  to  be 
betrayed  into  any  loss  of  temper;  but  if 
provoked,  as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be,  into 
crimination  and  recrimination,  the  hon 
orable  member  may  perhaps  find,  that, 
in  that  contest,  there  will  be  blows  to 
take  as  well  as  blows  to  give ;  that  others 
can  state  comparisons  as  significant,  at 
least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity 
may  possibly  demand  of  him  whatever 
powers  of  taunt  and  sarcasm  he  may 
possess.  I  commend  him  to  a  prudent 
husbandry  of  his  resources. 

But,  Sir,  the  Coalition!  The  Coali 
tion!  Ay,  "the  murdered  Coalition!" 
The  "gentleman  asks,  if  I  were  led  or 
frighted  into  this  debate  by  the  spectre 
of  the  Coalition.  "  Was  it  the  ghost  of 
the  murdered  Coalition,"  he  exclaims, 
"which  haunted  the  member  from  Mas 
sachusetts;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of 
Banquo,  would  never  down?"  "The 
murdered  Coalition!"  Sir,  this  charge 
of  a  coalition,  in  reference  to  the  late 
administration,  is  not  original  with  the 
honorable  member.  It  did  not  spring 
up  in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a  fact, 
as  an  argument,  or  as  an  embellishment, 
it  is  all  borrowed.  He  adopts  it,  in 
deed,  from  a  very  low  origin,  and  a  still 
lower  present  condition.  It  is  one  of 
the  thousand  calumnies  with  which  the 
press  teemed,  during  an  excited  political 
canvass.  It  was  a  charge,  of  which 
there  was  not  only  no  proof  or  proba 
bility,  but  which  was  in  itself  wholly 
impossible  to  be  true.  No  man  of  com 
mon  information  ever  believed  a  syllable 
of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class  of  false 
hoods,  which,  by  continued  repetition, 


through  all  the  organs  of  detraction  and 
abuse,  are  capable  of  misleading  those 
who  are  already  far  misled,  and  of  fur 
ther  fanning  passion  already  kindling 
into  flame.  Doubtless  it  served  in  its 
day,  and  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the 
end  designed  by  it.  Having  done  that, 
it  has  sunk  into  the  general  mass  of 
stale  and  loathed  calumnies.  It  is  the 
very  cast-off  slough  of  a  polluted  and 
shameless  press.  Incapable  of  further 
mischief,  it  lies  in  the  sewer,  lifeless 
and  despised.  It  is  not  now,  Sir,  in  the 
power  of  the  honorable  member  to  give 
it  dignity  or  decency,  by  attempting  to 
elevate  it,  and  to  introduce  it  into  the 
Senate.  He  cannot  change  it  from  what 
it  is,  an  object  of  general  disgust  and 
scorn.  On  the  contrary,  the  contact,  if 
he  choose  to  touch  it,  is  more  likely  to 
drag  him  down,  down,  to  the  place 
where  it  lies  itself. 

-  But,  Sir,  the  honorable  member  was 
not,  for  other  reasons,  entirely  happy  in 
his  allusion  to  the  story  of  Bariquo's 
murder  and  Banquo's  ghost.  It  was 
not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but  the  ene 
mies  of  the  murdered  Banquo,  at  whose 
bidding  his  spirit  would  not  down.  The 
honorable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  read 
ing  of  the  English  classics,  and  can  put 
me  right  if  I  am  wrong;  but,  according 
to  my  poor  recollection,  it  was  at  those 
who  had  begun  with  caresses  and  ended 
with  foul  and  treacherous  murder  that 
the  gory  locks  were  shaken.  The  ghost 
of  Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an 
honest  ghost.  It  disturbed  no  innocent 
man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance 
would  strike  terror,  and  who  would  cry 
out,  A  ghost!  It  made  itself  visible  in 
the  right  quarter,  and  compelled  the 
guilty  and  the  conscience-smitten,  and 
none  others,  to  start'j "wilE, 

"  Pr'ythee,  see  there !  behold !  —look !  lo, 
If  I  stand  here,  I  saw  him!  " 

THEIR  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not 
so,  Sir?)  who  had  thought  to  shield 
themselves  by  concealing  their  own 
hand,  and  laying  the  imputation  of  the 
crime  on  a  low  and  hireling  agency  in 
wickedness ;  who  had  vainly  attempted 
to  stifle  the  workings  of  their  own  cow- 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


231 


ard  consciences  by  ejaculating  through 
white  lips  and  chattering  teeth,  "  Thou 
canst  not  say  I  did  it!  "  I  have  misread 
the  great  poet  if  those  who  had  no  way 
partaken  in  the  deed  of  the  death,  either 
found  that  they  were,  or  feared  that  they 
should  be,  pushed  from  their  stools  by 
the  ghost  of  the  slain,  or  exclaimed  to  a 
spectre  created  by  their  own  fears  and 
their  own  remorse,  "Avaunt!  and  quit 
our  sight!  " 

There  is  another  particular,  Sir,  in 
which  the  honorable  member's  quick 
perception  of  resemblances  might,  I 
should  think,  have  seen  something  in 
the  story  of  Ban  quo,  making  it  not  alto- 
V  gether  a  subject  of  the  most  pleasanj^ 
Contemplation.  Those  who  murdere'd 
Banquo,  what  did  they  win  by  it?  Sub 
stantial  good?  Permanent  power?  Or 
disappointment,  rather,  and  sore  morti 
fication,  —  dust  and  ashes,  the  common 
fate  of  vaulting  ambition  overleaping 
itself?  Did  not  even-handed  justice  ere 
long  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to 
their  own  lips?  Did  they  not  soon  find 
that  for  another  they  had  "  filed  their 
mind"?  that  their  ambition,  though 
apparently  for  the  moment  successful, 
had  but  put  a  barren  sceptre  in  their 
grasp?  Ay,  Sir, 

"  a  barren  sceptre  in  their  gripe, 
.  Thence  to  be  wrenched  with  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  theirs  succeeding.'1'1 

Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no 
farther.  I  leave  the  honorable  gentle 
man  to  run  it  out  at  his  leisure,  and  to 
derive  from  it  all  the  gratification  it  is 
calculated  to  administer.  If  he  finds 
himself  pleased  with  the  associations, 
and  prepared  to  be  quite  satisfied, 
though  the  parallel  should  be  entirely 
completed,  I  had  almost  said,  I  am  sat 
isfied  also;  but  that  I  shall  think  of. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  will  think  of  that 

In  the  course  of  my  observations  the 
other  day,  Mr.  President,  I  paid  a  pass 
ing  tribute  of  respect  to  a  very  worthy 
man,  Mr.  Dane  of  Massachusetts.  It 
so  happened  that  he  drew  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  for  the  government  of  the 
Northwestern  Territory.  A  man  of  so 
much  ability,  and  so  little  pretence ;  of 


so  great  a  capacity  to  do  good,  and  so 
unmixed  a  disposition  to  do  it  for  its 
own  sake ;  a  gentleman  who  had  acted 
an  important  part,  forty  years  ago,  in  a 
measure  the  influence  of  which  is  still 
deeply  felt  in  the  very  matter  which  was 
the  subject  of  debate,  —  might,  I  thought, 
receive  from  me  a  commendatory  recog 
nition.  But  the  honorable  member  was 
inclined  to  be  facetious  on  the  subject. 
He  was  rather  disposed  to  make  it  mat 
ter  of  ridicule,  that  I  had  introduced 
into  the  debate  the  name  of  one  Nathan 
Dane,  of  whom  he  assures  us  he  had 
never  before  heard.  Sir,  if  the  honor- 
ajede  member  had  never  before  heard  of 
^Ir.  Dane,  I  am  sorry  for  it.  It  shows 
him  less  acquainted  with  the  public  men 
of  the  country  than  I  had  supposed. 
Let  me  tell  him,  however,  that  a  sneer 
from  him  at  the  mention  of  the  name 
of  Mr.  Dane  is  in  bad  taste"  It  may 
well  be  a  high  mark  of  ambition,  Sir, 
either  with  the  honorable  gentleman  or 
myself,  to  accomplish  as  much  to  make 
our  names  known  to  advantage,  and  re 
membered  with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane 
has  accomplished.  But  the  truth  is, 
Sir,  I  suspect,  that  Mr.  Dane  lives  a 
Jittle  too  far  north.  He  is  of  Massachu 
setts,  and  too  near  the  north  star  to  be 
reached  by  the  honorable  gentleman's 
telescope.  If  his  sphere  had  happened 
to  range  south  of  Masor  and  Dixon's 
line,  he  might,  probably,  have  come 
within  the  scope  of  his  vision. 

I  spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  which  prohibits  slavery,  in  all 
future  times,  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  as 
a  measure  of  great  wisdom  and  fore 
sight,  and  one  which  had  been  attended 
with  highly  beneficial  and  permanent 
consequences.  I  supposed  that,  on  this 
point,  no  two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate 
could  entertain  different  opinions.  But 
the  simple  expression  of  this  sentiment 
has  led  the  gentleman,  not  only  into  a 
labored  defence  of  slavery,  in  the  ab 
stract,  and  on  principle,  but  also  into  a 
warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having 
attacked  the  system  of  domestic  slavery 
now  existing  in  the  Southern  States. 
For  all  this,  there  was  not  the  slightest 
foundation,  in  any  thing  said  or  inti- 


232 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYXE. 


mated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single 
word  which  any  ingenuity  could  torture 
into  an  attack  on  the  slavery  of  the 
South.  I  said,  only,  that  it  was  highly 
wise  and  useful,  in  legislating  for  the 
Northwestern  country  while  it  was  yet 
a  wilderness,  to  prohibit  the  introduc 
tion  of  slaves;  and  I  added,  that  I  pre 
sumed  there  was  no  reflecting  and  intel 
ligent  person,  in  the  neighboring  State 
of  Kentucky,  who  would  doubt  that,  if 
the  same  prohibition  had  been  extended, 
at  the  same  early  period,  over  that  com 
monwealth,  her  strength  and  population 
would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater 
than  they  are.  If  these  opinions  be 
thought  doubtful,  they  are  nevertheless, 
I  trust,  neither  extraordinary  nor  dis 
respectful.  They  attack  nobody  and 
menace  nobody.  And  yet,  Sir,  the  gen 
tleman's  optics  have  discovered,  even  in 
the  mere  expression  of  this  sentiment, 
what  he  calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Mis 
souri  question!  He  represents  me  as 
making  an  onset  on  the  whole  South, 
and  manifesting  a  spirit  which  would 
interfere  with,  and  disturb,  their  domes 
tic  condition ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  sur 
prises  me,  than  as  it  is  committed  here, 
and  committed  without  the  slightest  pre 
tence  of  ground  for  it.  I  say  it  only 
surprises  me  as  being  done  here ;  for  I 
know  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been, 
the  settled  policy  of  some  persons  in  the 
South,  for  years,  to  represent  the  people 
of  the  North  as  disposed  to  interfere 
with  them  in  their  own  exclusive  and 
peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  delicate 
and  sensitive  point  in  Southern  feeling ; 
and  of  late  years  it  has  always  been 
touched,  and  generally  with  effect, 
whenever  the  object  has  been  to  unite 
the  whole  South  against  Northern  men 
or  Northern  measures.  This  feeling, 
always  carefully  kept  alive,  and  main 
tained  at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit 
discrimination  or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of 
great  power  in  our  political  machine. 
It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to  them 
one  and  the  same  direction.  But  it  is 
without  adequate,  cause,  and  the  suspi 
cion  which  exists  is  wholly  groundless. 
There  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  a  dis 


position  in  the  North  to  interfere  with 
these  interests  of  the  South.  Such  in 
terference  has  never  been  supposed  to 
be  within  the  power  of  government;  nor 
has  it  befcn  in  any  way  attempted.  The 
slavery  of  the  South  has  always  been 
regarded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy, 
left  with  the  States  themselves,  and  with 
which  the  Federal  government  had  noth 
ing  to  do.  Certainly,  Sir,  I  am,  and  ever 
have  been,  of  that  opinion.  The  gen 
tleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in 
the  abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assuredly 
I  need  not  say  I  differ  with  him,  alto 
gether  and  most  widely,  on  that  point. 
I  regard  domestic  slavery  as  one  of  the 
greatest  evils,  both  moral  and  political. 
But  whether  it  be  a  malady,  and  whether 
it  be  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what  means; 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the 
vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  system, 
I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty 
it  is  to  inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this 
I  believe,  Sir,  is,  and  uniformly  has 
been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North.  Let 
us  look  a  little  at  the  history  of  this 
matter. 

When  the  present  Constitution  was 
submitted  for  the  ratification  of  the  peo 
ple,  there  were  those  who  imagined  that 
the  powers  of  the  government  which  it 
proposed  to  establish  might,  in  some 
possible  mode,  be  exerted  in  measures 
tending  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  This 
suggestion  would  of  course  attract  much 
attention  in  the  Southern  conventions. 
In  that  of  Virginia,  Governor  Randolph 
said :  — 

"  I  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  con 
sidering  the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of 
philosophy,  will  make  an  objection  dis 
honorable  to  Virginia ;  that,  at  the  mo 
ment  they  are  securing  the  rights  of 
their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started, 
that  there  is  a  spark  of  hope  that  those 
unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage 
may,  by  the  operation  of  the  general 
government,  be  made  free." 

At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions 
on  the  subject  were  presented,  if  I  mis 
take  not,  from  different  States.  The 
Pennsylvania  society  for  promoting  the 
abolition  of  slavery  took  a  lead,  and  laid 
before  Congress  a  memorial,  praying 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


233 


Congress  to  promote  the  abolition  by 
such  powers  as  it  possessed.  This  me 
morial  was  referred,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  to  a  select  committee, 
consisting  of  Mr.  Foster  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  Mr.  Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  Mr. 
Huntington  of  Connecticut,  Mr.  Law 
rence  of  New  York,  Mr.  Sinnickson  of 
New  Jersey,  Mr.  Hartley  of  Pennsylva 
nia,  and  Mr.  Parker  of  Virginia,  —  all 
of  them,  Sir,  as  you  will  observe,  North 
ern  men  but  the  last.  This  committee 
made  a  report,  which  was  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole  House,  and 
there  considered  and  discussed  for  sev 
eral  days;  and  being  amended,  although 
without  material  alteration,  it  was  made 
to  express  three  distinct  propositions, 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  the  slave- 
trade.  First,  in  the  words  of  the  Con 
stitution,  that  Congress  could  not,  prior 
to  the  year  1808,  prohibit  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  then  existing  should  think 
proper  to  admit  ;  and,  secondly,  that 
Congress  had  authority  to  restrain  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  from  car 
rying  on  the  African  slave-trade,  for  the 
purpose  of  supplying  foreign  countries. 
On  this  proposition,  our  early  laws 
against  those  who  engage  in  that  traffic 
are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and 
that  which  bears  on  the  present  ques 
tion,  was  expressed  in  the  following 
terms :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  have  no 
authority  to  interfere  in  t  the  emancipa 
tion  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of 
them  in  any  of  the  States ;  it  remaining 
with  the  several  States  alone  to  provide 
rules  and  regulations  therein  which  hu 
manity  and  true  policy  may  require." 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  so  early 
as  March,  17&0.  And  now,  Sir,  the 
honorable  member  will  allow  me  to  re 
mind  him,  that  not  only  were  the  select 
committee  who  reported  the  resolution, 
with  a  single  exception,  all  Northern 
men,  but  also  that,  of  the  members  then 
composing  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  a  large  majority,  I  believe  nearly 
two  thirds,  were  Northern  men  also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  reso 


lutions  in  its  journal ;  and  from  that  day 
to  this  it  has  never  been  maintained  or 
contended  at  the  North,  that  Congress 
had  any  authority  to  regulate  or  inter 
fere  with  the  condition  of  slaves  in  the 
several  States.  No  Northern  gentle 
man,  to  my  knowledge,  has  moved  any 
such  question  in  either  House  of  Con 
gress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears 
they  might  have  entertained,  were  al 
layed  'and  quieted  by  this  early  decis 
ion  ;  and  so  remained  till  they  were 
excited  afresh,  without  cause,  but  for 
collateral  and  indirect  purposes.  When 
it  became  necessary,  or  was  thought  so, 
by  some  political  persons,  to  find  an 
unvarying  ground  for  the  exclusion  of 
Northern  men  from  confidence  and  from 
lead  in  the  affairs  of  the  republic,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  the  cry  was  raised,  and 
the  feeling  industriously  excited,  that 
the  influence  of  Northern  men  in  the 
public  counsels  would  endanger  the  re 
lation  of  master  and  slave.  For  myself, 
I  claim  no  other  merit  than  that  this 
gross  and  enormous  injustice  towards 
the  whole  North  has  not  wrought  upon 
me  to  change  my  opinions  or  my  politi 
cal  conduct.  I  hope  I  am  above  violat 
ing  my  principles,  even  under  the  smart 
of  injury  and  false  imputations.  Un 
just  suspicions  and  undeserved  reproach, 
whatever  pain  I  may  experience  from 
them,  will  not  induce  me,  I  trust,  to 
overstep  the  limits  of  constitutional 
duty,  or  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of 
others.  The  domestic  slavery  of  the 
Southern  States  I  leave  where  I  find  it, 
—  in  the  hands  of  their  own  govern 
ments.  It  is  their  affair,  not  mine. 
Nor  do  I  complain  of  the  peculiar  effect 
which  the  magnitude  of  that  population 
has  had  in  the  distribution  of  power 
under  this  Federal  government.  We 
know,  Sir,  that  the  representation  of 
the  States  in  the  other  house  is  not 
equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage 
in  that  respect  is  enjoyed  by  the  slave- 
holding  States;  and  we  know,  too,  that 
the  intended  equivalent  for  that  advan 
tage,  that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of 
direct  taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  be 
come  merely  nominal,  the  habit  of  the 


234 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


government  being  almost  invariably  to 
collect  its  revenue  from  other  sources 
and  in  other  modes.  Nevertheless,  I 
do  not  complain;  nor  would  I  counte 
nance  any  movement  to  alter  this  ar 
rangement  of  representation.  It  is  the 
original  bargain,  the  compact ;  let  it 
stand ;  let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully 
enjoyed.  The  Union  itself  is  too  full 
of  benefit  to  be  hazarded  in  propositions 
for  changing  its  original  basis.  I  go  for 
the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the 
Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am  resolved  not 
to  submit  in  silence  to  accusations,  either 
against  myself  individually  or  against 
the  North,  wholly  unfounded  and  un 
just,  —  accusations  which  impute  to  us 
a  disposition  to  evade  the  constitutional 
compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the 
government  over  the  internal  laws  and 
domestic  condition  of  the  States.  AD 
such  accusations,  wherever  and  whenever 
made,  all  insinuations  of  the  existence  of 
any  such  purposes,  I  know  and  feel  to  be 
groundless  and  injurious.  And  we  must 
confide  in  Southern  gentlemen  them 
selves  ;  we  must  trust  to  those  whose  in 
tegrity  of  heart  and  magnanimity  of  feel 
ing  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to  maintain 
and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess 
the  means  of  its  diffusion  with  the 
Southern  public;  we  must  leave  it  to 
them  to  disabuse  that  public  of  its  prej 
udices.  But  in  the  mean  time,  for  my 
own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act  justly, 
whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is 
exercised  receive  it  with  candor  or  with 
contumely. 

Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  in  order  to  defend 
myself  against  the  inferences  which  the 
honorable  member  has  chosen  to  draw 
from  my  former  observations  on  that 
subject,  I  am  not  willing  now  entirely 
to  take  leave  of  it  without  another  re 
mark.  It  need  hardly  be  said,  that  that 
paper  expresses  just  sentiments  on  the 
great  subject  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty.  Such  sentiments  were  com 
mon,  and  abound  in  all  our  state  papers 
of  that  day.  But  this  Ordinance  did 
that  which  was  not  so  common,  and 
which  is  not  even  now  universal ;  thatjs, 
it  set  forth  and  declared  it  to  be  a  high 


and  binding  duty  of  government  itself 
to  support  schools  and  advance  the  means 
of  education,  on  the  plain  reason  that 
religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  are 
necessary  to  good  government,  and  to  the 
happiness  of  mankind.  One  observa 
tion  further.  The  important  provision 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  into  several  of  those 
of  the  States,  and  recently,  as  we  have 
seen,  adopted  into  the  reformed  consti 
tution  of  Virginia,  restraining  legisla 
tive  power  in  questions  of  private  right, 
and  from  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts,  is  first  introduced  and  estab 
lished,  as  far  as  I  am  informed,  as  matter 
of  express  written  constitutional  law,  in 
this  Ordinance  of  1787.  And  I  must 
add,  also,  in  regard  to  the  author  of  the 
Ordinance,  who  has  not  had  the  happi 
ness  to  attract  the  gentleman's  notice 
heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now, 
that  he  was  chairman  of  that  select  com 
mittee  of  the  old  Congress,  whose  report 
first  expressed  the  strong  sense  of  that 
body,  that  the  old  Confederation  was 
not  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the 
country,  and  recommended  to  the  States 
to  send  delegates  to  the  convention  which 
formed  the  present  Constitution. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer 
from  the  North  to  the  South  the  honor 
of  this  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the 
Northwestern  Territory.  The  journal, 
without  argument  or  comment,  refutes 
such  attempts.  The  cession  by  Virginia 
was  made  in  March,  1784.  On  the  19th 
of  April  following,  a  committee,  consist 
ing  of  Messrs.  Jefferson,  Chase,  and 
Howell,  reported  a  plan  for  a  temporary 
government  of  the  territory,  in  which 
was  this  article:  "That,  after  the  year 
1800,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said 
States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of 
crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
convicted. ' '  Mr.  Spaight  of  North  Caro 
lina  moved  to  strike  out  this  paragraph. 
The  question  was  put,  according  to  the 
form  then  practised,  "  Shall  these  words 
stand  as  a  part  of  the  plan?  "  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Isl 
and,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jer 
sey,  and  Pennsylvania,  seven  States, 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


235 


voted  in  the  affirmative ;  Maryland,  Vir 
ginia,  and  South  Carolina,  in  the  nega 
tive.  North  Carolina  was  divided.  As 
the  consent  of  nine  States  was  necessary, 
the  words  could  not  stand,  and  were 
struck  out  accordingly.  Mr.  Jefferson 
voted  for  the  clause,  but  was  overruled 
by  his  colleagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year  (1785),  Mr. 
King  of  Massachusetts,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Ellery  of  Rhode  Island,  proposed  the 
formerly  rejected  article,  with  this  addi 
tion:  "  And  that  this  regulation  shall  be 
an  article  of  compact,  and  remain  a 
fundamental  principle  of  the  constitu 
tions  between  the  thirteen  original 
States,  and  each  of  the  States  described 
in  the  resolve."  On  this  clause,  which 
provided  the  adequate  and  thorough 
security,  the  eight  Northern  States  at 
that  time  voted  affirmatively,  and  the 
four  Southern  States  negatively.  The 
votes  of  nine  States  were  not  yet  obtained, 
and  thus  the  provision  was  again  rejected 
by  the  Southern  States.  The  persever 
ance  of  the  North  held  out,  and  two 
years  afterwards  the  object  was  attained. 
It  is  no  derogation  from  the  credit,  what 
ever  that  maybe,  of  drawing  the  Ordi 
nance,  that  its  principles  had  before  been 
prepared  and  discussed,  in  the  form  of 
resolutions.  If  one  should  reason  in 
that  way,  what  would  become  of  the  dis 
tinguished  honor  of  the  author  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence?  There  is 
not  a  sentiment  in  that  paper  which  had 
not  been  voted  and  resolved  in  the  as 
semblies,  and  other  popular  bodies  in  the 
country,  over  and  over  again. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now 
found  out  that  this  gentleman,  Mr.  Dane, 
was  a  member  of  the  Hartford  Conven 
tion.  However  uninformed  the  honor 
able  member  may  be  of  characters  and 
occurrences  at  the  North,  it  would  seem 
that  he  has  at  his  elbow,  on  this  occa 
sion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit, 
some  magnanimous  and  true-hearted 
monitor,  possessing  the  means  of  local 
knowledge,  and  ready  to  supply  the 
honorable  member  with  every  thing, 
down  even  to  forgotten  and  moth-eaten 
two-penny  pamphlets,  which  may  be 
used  to  the  disadvantage  of  his  own 


country.  But  as  to  the  Hartford  Con 
vention,  Sir,  allow  me  to  say,  that  the 
proceedings  of  that  body  seem  now  to 
be  less  read  and  studied  in  New  England 
than  farther  South.  They  appear  to 
be  looked  to,  not  in  New  England,  but 
elsewhere,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  how 
far  they  may  serve  as  a  precedent.  But 
they  will  not  answer  the  purpose,  they 
are  quite  too  tame.  The  latitude  in 
which  they  originated  was  too  cold. 
Other  conventions,  of  more  recent  exist 
ence,  have  gone  a  whole  bar's  length 
beyond  it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colle- 
ton  and  Abbeville  have  pushed  their 
commentaries  on  the  Hartford  collect  so 
far,  that  the  original  text-writers  are 
thrown  entirely  into  the  shade.  I  have 
nothing  to  do,  Sir,  with  the  Hartford 
Convention.  Its  journal,  which  the  gen 
tleman  has  quoted,  I  never  read.  So  far 
as  the  honorable  member  may  discover 
in  its  proceedings  a  spirit  in  any  degree 
resembling  that  which  was  avowed  and 
justified  in  those  other  conventions  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those 
proceedings  can  be  shown  to  be  disloyal 
to  the  Constitution,  or  tending  to  dis 
union,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as  any 
one  to  bestow  on  them  reprehension  and 
censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention, 
and  other  occurrences  of  that  day,  in  the 
hope,  probably,  (which  will  not  be  grati 
fied,)  that  I  should  leave  the  course  of 
this  debate  to  follow  him  at  length  in 
those  excursions,  the  honorable  member 
returned,  and  attempted  another  object. 
He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  the 
other  house,  the  same  which  I  had  occa 
sion  to  allude  to  myself,  the  other  day; 
and  has  quoted  a  passage  or  two  from  it, 
with  a  bold,  though  uneasy  and  labor 
ing,  air  of  confidence,  as  if  he  had  de 
tected  in  me  an  inconsistency.  Judging 
from  the  gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger 
to  the  course  of  the  debate  and  to  the 
point  in  discussion  would  have  imagined, 
from  so  triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  hon 
orable  member  was  about  to  overwhelm 
me  with  a  manifest  contradiction.  Any 
one  who  heard  him,  and  who  had  not 
heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previously 
said,  must  have  thought  me  routed  and 


236 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


discomfited,  as  the  gentleman  had  prom 
ised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph 
away.  There  is  not  the  slightest  differ 
ence  in  the  purport  of  my  remarks  on 
the  two  occasions.  What  I  said  here  on 
Wednesday  is  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  opinion  expressed  by  me  in  the  other 
house  in  1825.  Though  the  gentleman 
had  the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras,  though 
he  were  able 

"  to  sever  and  divide 
A  hair  'twixt  north  and  northwest  side," 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical 
scissors  between  the  fair  reading  of  my 
remarks  in  1825,  and  what  I  said  here 
last  week.  There  is  not  only  no  contra 
diction,  no  difference,  but,  in  truth,  too 
exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought  and 
language,  to  be  entirely  in  just  taste.  I 
had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech ;  had 
recurred  to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open 
before  me ;  and  much  of  what  I  said  was 
little  more  than  a  repetition  from  it. 
In  order  to  make  finishing  work  with 
this  alleged  contradiction,  permit  me  to 
recur  to  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and 
review  its  course.  This  seems  expedi 
ent,  and  may  be  done  as  well  now  as  at 
any  time. 

Well,  then,  its  history  is  this.  The 
honorable  member  from  Connecticut 
moved  a  resolution,  which  constitutes 
the  first  branch  of  that  which  is  now  be 
fore  us;  that  is  to  say,  a  resolution,  in 
structing  the  committee  on  public  lands 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  limit 
ing,  for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands,  to  such  as  have  heretofore 
been  offered  for  sale ;  and  whether  sun 
dry  offices  connected  with  the  sales  of 
the  lands  might  not  be  abolished  with 
out  detriment  to  the  public  service.  In 
the  progress  of  the  discussion  which 
arose  on  this  resolution,  an  honorable 
member  from  New  Hampshire  moved  to 
amend  the  resolution,  so  as  entirely  to 
reverse  its  object;  that  is,  to  strike  it  all 
out,  and  insert  a  direction  to  the  com 
mittee  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
adopting  measures  to  hasten  the  sales, 
and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys,  of 
the  lands. 

The  honorable  member  from  Maine l 
1  Mr.  Sprague. 


suggested  that  both  those  propositions 
might  well  enough  go  for  consideration 
to  the  committee;  and  in  this  state  of 
the  question,  the  member  from  South 
Carolina*  addressed  the  Senate  in  his 
first  speech.  He  rose,  he  said,  to  give 
us  his  own  free  thoughts  on  the  public 
lands.  I  saw  him  rise  with  pleasure, 
and  listened  with  expectation,  though 
before  he  concluded  I  was  filled  with 
surprise.  Certainly,  I  was  never  more 
surprised,  than  to  find  him  following 
up,  to  the  extent  he  did,  the  sentiments 
and  opinions  which  the  gentleman  from 
Missouri  had  put  forth,  and  which  it  is 
known  he  has  long  entertained. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general 
topics  of  the  honorable  gentleman's 
speech.  When  he  said  yesterday  that 
he  did  not  attack  the  Eastern  States,  he 
certainly  must  have  forgotten,  not  only 
particular  remarks,  but  the  whole  drift 
and  tenor  of  his  speech ;  unless  he  means 
by  not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  com 
mence  hostilities,  but  that  another  had 
preceded  him  in  the  attack.  He,  in  the 
first  place,  disapproved  of  the  whole 
course  of  the  government,  for  forty 
years,  in  regard  to  its  disposition  of  the 
public  lands;  and  then,  turning  north 
ward  and  eastward,  and  fancying  he  had 
found  a  cause  for  alleged  narrowness 
and  niggardliness  in  the  ' '  accursed  pol 
icy  "  of  the  tariff,  to  which  he  repre 
sented  the  people  of  New  England  as 
wedded,  he  went  on  for  a  full  hour  with 
remarks,  the  whole  scope  of  which  was 
to  exhibit  the  results  of  this  policy,  in 
feelings  and  in  measures  unfavorable  to 
the  West.  I  thought  his  opinions  un 
founded  and  erroneous,  as  to  the  general 
course  of  the  government,  and  ventured 
to  reply  to  them. 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the 
analogy  of  other  cases,  and  quoted  the 
conduct  of  European  governments  to 
wards  their  own  subjects  settling  on  this 
continent,  as  in  point,  to  show  that  we 
had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling,  when 
we  should  have  given  the  public  lands  to 
settlers  without  price.  I  thought  the 
honorable  member  had  suffered  his  judg 
ment  to  be  betrayed  by  a  false  analogy ; 
that  he  was  struck  with  an  appearance 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


237 


of  resemblance  where  there  was  no  real 
similitude.  I  think  so  still.  The  first 
settlers  of  North  America  were  enter 
prising  spirits,  engaged  in  private  ad 
venture,  or  fleeing  from  tyranny  at 
home.  When  arrived  here,  they  were 
forgotten  by  the  mother  country,  or  re 
membered  only  to  be  oppressed.  Car 
ried  away  again  by  the  appearance  of 
analogy,  or  struck  with  the  eloquence  of 
the  passage,  the  honorable  member  yes 
terday  observed,  that  the  conduct  of 
government  towards  the  Western  emi 
grants,  or  my  representation  of  it, 
brought  to  his  mind  a  celebrated  speech 
in  the  British  Parliament.  It  was,  Sir, 
the  speech  of  Colonel  Barre.  On  the 
question  of  the  stamp  act,  or  tea  tax,  I 
forget  which,  Colonel  Barre  had  heard  a 
member  on  the  treasury  bench  argue, 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  be 
ing  British  colonists,  planted  by  the  ma 
ternal  care,  nourished  by  the  indulgence, 
and  protected  by  the  arms  of  England, 
would  not  grudge  their  mite  to  relieve 
the  mother  country  from  the  heavy  bur 
den  under  which  she  groaned.  The 
language  of  Colonel  Barre,  in  reply  to 
this,  was:  "  They  planted  by  your  care? 
Your  oppression  planted  them  in  Amer 
ica.  They  fled  from  your  tyranny,  and 
grew  by  your  neglect  of  them.  So  soon 
as  you  began  to  care  for  them,  you 
showed  your  care  by  sending  persons  to 
spy  out  their  liberties,  misrepresent  their 
character,  prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out 
their  substance." 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentle 
man  mean  to  maintain,  that  language 
like  this  is  applicable  to  the  conduct  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States 
towards  the  Western  emigrants,  or  to 
any  representation  given  by  me  of  that 
conduct?  Were  the  settlers  in  the  West 
driven  thither  by  our  oppression?  Have 
they  flourished  only  by  our  neglect  of 
them?  Has  the  government  done  noth 
ing  but  prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out 
their  substance?  Sir,  this  fervid  elo 
quence  of  the  British  speaker,  just  when 
and  where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  re 
main  an  exercise  for  the  schools,  is  not 
a  little  out  of  place,  when  it  is  brought 
thence  to  be  applied  here  to  the  conduct 


of  our  own  country  towards  her  own  cit 
izens.  From  America  to  England,  it 
may  be  true;  from  Americans  to  their 
own  government,  it  would  be  strange 
language.  Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited 
and  declaimed  by  our  boys  against  a  for 
eign  nation;  not  introduce  it  here,  to 
recite  and  declaim  ourselves  against  our 
own. 

But  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  al 
leged  contradiction.  In  my  remarks  on 
Wednesday,  I  contended  that  we  could 
not  give  away  gratuitously  all  the  public 
lands ;  that  we  held  them  in  trust ;  that 
the  government  had  solemnly  pledged 
itself  to  dispose  of  them  as  a  common 
fund  for  the  common  benefit,  and  to  sell 
and  settle  them  as  its  discretion  should 
dictate.  Now,  Sir,  what  contradiction 
does  the  gentleman  find  to  this  senti 
ment  in  the  speech  of  1825?  He  quotes 
me  as  having  then  said,  that  we  ought 
not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a  very  great 
treasure.  Very  well,  Sir,  supposing  me 
to  be  accurately  reported  in  that  expres 
sion,  what  is  the  contradiction?  I  have 
not  now  said,  that  we  should  hug  these 
lands  as  a  favorite  source  of  pecuniary 
income.  No  such  thing.  It  is  not  my 
view.  What  I  have  .said,  and  what  I  do 
say,  is,  that  they  are  a  common  fund,  to 
be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit, 
to  be  sold  at  low  prices  for  the  accom 
modation  of  settlers,  keeping  the  object 
of  settling  the  lands  as  much  in  view  as 
that  of  raising  money  from  them.  This 
I  say  now,  and  this  I  have  always  said. 
Is  this  hugging  them  as  a  favorite  treas 
ure?  Is  there  no  difference  between 
hugging  and  hoarding  this  fund,  on  the 
one  hand,  as  a  great  treasure,  and,  on 
the  other,  of  disposing  of  it  at  low  prices, 
placing  the  proceeds  in  the  general  treas 
ury  of  the  Union?  My  opinion  is,  that 
as  much  is  to  be  made  of  the  land  as 
fairly  and  reasonably  may  be,  selling  it 
all  the  while  at  such  rates  as  to  give  the 
fullest  effect  to  settlement.  This  is  not 
giving  it  all  away  to  the  States,  as  the 
gentleman  would  propose ;  nor  is  it  hug 
ging  the  fund  closely  and  tenaciously, 
as  a  favorite  treasure;  but  it  is,  in  my 
judgment,  a  just  and  wise  policy,  per 
fectly  according  with  all  the  various  du- 


238 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


ties  which  rest  on  government.  So  much 
for  my  contradiction.  And  what  is  it? 
Where  is  the  ground  of  the  gentleman's 
triumph?  What  inconsistency  in  word 
or  doctrine  has  he  been  able  to  detect? 
Sir,  if  this  be  a  sample  of  that  discom 
fiture  with  which  the  honorable  gentle 
man  threatened  me,  commend  me  to 
the  word  discomfiture  for  the  rest  of  my 
life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of 
the  debate;  and  I  must  now  bring  the 
gentleman  back  to  what  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him 
is,  Has  the  doctrine  been  advanced  at 
the  South  or  the  East,  that  the  popula 
tion  of  the  West  should  be  retarded,  or 
at  least  need  not  be  hastened,  on  ac 
count  of  its  effect  to  drain  off  the  people 
from  the  Atlantic  States?  Is  this  doc 
trine,  as  has  been  alleged,  of  Eastern 
origin?  That  is  the  question.  Has  thej 
gentleman  found  any  thing  by  which  hep 
can  make  good  his  accusation?  I  sub 
mit  to  the  Senate,  that  he  has  entirely 
failed;  and,  as  fur  as  this  debate  has 
shown,  the  only  person  who  has  ad 
vanced  such  sentiments  is  a  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina,  and  a  friend  of  the 
honorable  member  himself.  The  hon 
orable  gentleman  has  given  no  answer  to 
this ;  there  is  none  which  can  be  given. 
The  simple  fact,  while  it  requires  no 
comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all  argu 
ment  to  refute  it.  I  could  refer  to  the 
speeches  of  another  Southern  gentle 
man,  in  years  before,  of  the  same  gen 
eral  character,  and  to  the  same  effect,  as 
that  which  has  been  quoted ;  but  I  will 
not  consume  the  time  of  the  Senate  by 
the  reading  of  them. 

So  then,  Sir,  New  England  is  guiltless 
of  the  policy  of  retarding  Western  popu 
lation,  and  of  all  envy  and  jealousy  of 
the  growth  of  the  new  States.  What 
ever  there  be  of  that  policy  in  the  coun 
try,  no  part  of  it  is  hers.  If  it  has  a 
local  habitation,  the  honorable  member 
has  probably  seen  by  this  time  where  to 
look  for  it ;  and  if  it  now  has  received  a 
name,  he  has  himself  christened  it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  Sir,  to  a  more 
important  part  of  the  honorable  gentle 
man's  observations.  Since  it  does  not 


accord  with  my  views  of  justice  and 
policy  to  give  away  the  public  lands 
altogether,  as  a  mere  matter  of  gratuity, 
I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
on  what  ground  it  is  that  I  consent  to 
vote  them  away  in  particular  instances. 
How,  he  inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with 
these  professed  sentiments,  my  support 
of  measures  appropriating  portions  of 
the  lands  to  particular  roads,  particular 
canals,  particular  rivers,  and  particular 
institutions  -of  education  in  the  West? 
This  leads,  Sir,  to  the  real  and  wide  dif 
ference  in  political  opinion  between  the 
honorable  gentleman  and  myself.  On 
my  part,  I  look  upon  all  these  objects  as 
connected  with  the  common  good,  fairly 
embraced  in  its  object  and  its  terms; 
he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if 
good  at  all,  only  local  good.  This  is  our 
difference.  The  interrogatory  which  he 
proceeded  to  put  at  once  explains  this/ 
« Difference.  ' '_What  Jj.n te res t. , '  *  jVjfcs  he,  — 
"has  South  Carolina  in  a  cuuul  in 
OKiolT^  Sir,  this  very  question  is  full 
"of  significance.  It  develops  the  gentle-  — 
man's  whole  political  system;  and  its 
answer  expounds  mine.  Here  we  dif 
fer.  I  look  upon  a  road  over  the  Al- 
leghanies,  a  canal  round  the  falls  of  the 
Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being 
'an  object  large  and  extensive  enough  to 
be  fairly  said  to  be  for  the  common 
benefit.  The  gentleman  thinks  other 
wise,  and  this  is  the  key  to  his  construc 
tion  of  the  powers  of  the  government./ 
He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has 
South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio.  On 
his  system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest. 
On  that  system,  Ohio  and  Carolina  are 
different  governments,  and  different 
countries;  connected  here,  it  is  true,  by 
some  slight  and  ill-defined  bond  of 
union,  but  in  all  main  respects  separate 
and  diverse.  On  that  system,  Carolina 
has  no  more  interest  in  a  canal  in  Ohio 
than  in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  there 
fore,  only  follows  out  his  own  principles; 
he  does  no  more  than  arrive  at  the  natu 
ral  conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines ;  he 
only  announces  the  true  results  of  that 
creed  which  he  has  adopted  himself,  and 
would  persuade  others  to  adopt,  when  he 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


239 


thus  declares  that  South  Carolina  has  no 
interest  in  a  public  work  in  Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New 
England  do  not  reason  thus.  Our-  notion 
of  things  is  entirely  different.  We  look 
upon  the  States,  not  as  separated,  but  as 
united.  We  love  to  dwell  on  that  union, 
and  on  the  mutual  happiness  which  it 
has  so  much  promoted,  and  the  common 
renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  contrib 
uted  to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation, 
Carolina  and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same 
country;  States,  united  under  the  same 
general  government,  having  interests, 
common,  associated,  intermingled.  In 
whatever  is  within  the  proper  sphere  of 
the  constitutional  power  of  this  govern 
ment,  we  look  upon  the  States  as  on 
We  do  not  impose  geographical  limits  to 
our  patriotic  feeling  or  regard ;  we  do  not 
follow  rivers  and  mountains,  and  lines 
of  latitude,  to  find  boundaries,  beyond 
which  public  improvements  do  not  ben 
efit  us.  We  who  come  here,  as  agents 
and  representatives  of  these  narrow- 
minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  Eng^ 
land,  consider  ourselves  as  bound  to 
regard  with  an  equal  eye  the  good  of  the 
whole,  in  whatever  is  within  our  powers 
of  legislation.  Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  ca 
nal,  beginning  in  South  Carolina  and 
ending  in  South  Carolina,  appeared  to 
me  to  be  of  national  importance  and 
national  magnitude,  believing,  as  I  do, 
that  the  power  of  government  extends 
to  the  encouragement  of  works  of  that 
description,  if  I  were  to  stand  up  here 
and  ask,  What  interest  has  Massachu 
setts  in  a  railroad  in  South  Carolina? 
I  should  not  be  willing  to  face  my  con 
stituents.  These  same  narrow-minded 
men  would  tell  me,  that  they  had  sent 
me  to  act  for  the  whole  country,  and  that 
one  who  possessed  too  little  comprehen 
sion,  either  of  intellect  or  feeling,  one 
who  was  not  large  enough,  both  in  mind 
and  in  heart,  to  embrace  the  whole,  was 
not  fit  to  be  intrusted  with  the  interest 
of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the 
powers  of  the  government  by  unjustifi 
able  construction,  nor  to  exercise  any 
not  within  a  fair  interpretation.  But 
when  it  is  believed  that  a  power  does 


to     \vVvr 


exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be 
/exercised  for  the  general  benefit  of  the 
Vhole.  So  far  as  respects  the  exercise 
of  such  a  power,  the  States  are  one.  It 
was  the  very  object  of  the  Constitution 
to  create  unity  of  interests  to  the  extent 
of  the  powers  of  the  general  government. 
In  war  and  peace  we  are  one;  in  com 
merce,  one;  because  the  authority  of  the 
general  government  reaches  to  war  and 
peace,  and  to  the  regulation  of  com 
merce.  I  have  never  seen  any  more 
difficulty  in  erecting  light-houses  on  the 
lakes,  than  on  the  ocean;  in  improving 
the  harbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they 
were  within  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide ; 
or  in  removing  obstructions  in  the  vast 
streams  of  the  West,  more  than  in  any 
k  to  facilitate  commerce  on  the  At 
lantic  coast.  If  there  be  any  power  for 
one,  there  is  power  also  for  the  other; 
and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  com 
mon  good  of  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently 
more  local,  or  the  benefit  of  which  is 
less  general,  towards  which,  neverthe 
less,  I  have  concurred  with  others,  to 
give  aid  by  donations  of  land.  It  -is 
proposed  to  construct  a  road,  in  or 
through  one  of  the  new  States,  in  which 
this  government  possesses  large  quanti 
ties  of  land.  Have  the  United  States 
no  right,  or,  as  a  great  and  untaxed 
proprietor,  are  they  under  no  obligation 
to  contribute  to  an  object  thus  calcu 
lated  to  promote  the  common  good  of 
all  the  proprietors,  themselves  included? 
And  even  with  respect  to  education, 
which  is  the  extreme  case,  let  the  ques 
tion  be  considered.  In  the  first  place, 
as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  matter  of 
compact  with  these  States,  that  they 
should  do  their  part  to  promote  educa 
tion.  In  the  next  place,  our  whole  sys 
tem  of  land  laws  proceeds  on  the  idea 
that  education  is  for  the  common  good ; 
because,  in  every  division,  a  certain 
portion  is  uniformly  reserved  and  ap 
propriated  for  the  use  of  schools.  And, 
finally,  have  not  these  new  States  sin 
gularly  strong  claims,  founded  on  the 
ground  already  stated,  that  the  govern 
ment  is  a  great  untaxed  proprietor,  in 
the  ownership  of  the  soil?  It  is  a  con- 


240 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


sideration  of  great  importance,  that  prob 
ably  there  is  in  no  part  of  the  country, 
or  of  the  world,  so  great  call  for  the 
means  of  education,  as  in  these  new 
States,  owing  to  the  vast  numbers  of 
persons  within  those  ages  in  which  edu 
cation  and  instruction  are  usually  re 
ceived,  if  received  at  all.  This  is  the 
natural  consequence  of  recency  of  settle 
ment  and  rapid  increase.  The  census 
of  these  States  shows  how  great  a  pro 
portion  of  the  whole  population  occu 
pies  the  classes  between  infancy  and 
manhood.  These  are  the  wide  fields, 
and  here  is  the  deep  and  quick  soil  for 
the  seeds  of  knowledge  and  virtue ;  and 
this  is  the  favored  season,  the  very 
spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them 
be  disseminated  without  stint.  Let  them 
be  scattered  with  a  bountiful  hand, 
broadcast.  Whatever  the  government 
can  fairly  do  towards  these  objects,  in 
my  opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  Sir,  are  the  grounds,  suc 
cinctly  stated,  on  which  my  votes  for 
grants  of  lands  for  particular  objects 
rest;,  while  I  maintain,  at  the  same 
time^  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund,  for 
the  common  benefit.  And  reasons  like 
these^  I  presume,  have  influenced  the 
votes  of  other  gentlemen  from  New 
England.  Those  who  have  a  different 
view. of  the  powers  of  the  government, 
of  course,  come  to  different  conclusions, 
on  these,  as  on  other  questions.  I  ob 
served,  when  speaking  on  this  subject  be 
fore,  that  if  we  looked  to  any  measure, 
whether  for  a  road,  a  canal,  or  any  thing 
else,  intended  for  the  improvement  of 
the  West,  it  would  be  found  that,  if  the 
New  England  ayes  were  struck  out  of 
the  lists  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes 
would  always  have  rejected  the  meas 
ure.  The  truth  of  this  has  not  been 
denied,  and  cannot  be  denied.  In  stat 
ing  this,  I  thought  it  just  to  ascribe  it 
to  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the 
South,  rather  than  to  any  other  less 
favorable  or  less  charitable  cause.  But 
no  sooner  had  I  done  this,  than  the  hon 
orable  gentleman  asks  if  I  reproach  him 
and  his  friends  with  their  constitutional 
scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  nobody.  I 
stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the  most  respect 


ful  reason  for  it  that  occurred  to  me. 
The  gentleman  cannot  deny  the  fact ;  he 
may,  if  he  choose,  disclaim  the  reason. 
It  is  not  long  since  I  had  occasion,  in 
presenting  a  petition  from  his  own  State, 
to  account  for  its  being  intrusted  to  my 
hands,  by  saying,  that  the  constitutional 
opinions  of  the  gentleman  and  his  wor 
thy  colleague  prevented  them  from  sup 
porting  it.  Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter 
of  reproach?  Far  from  it.  Did  I  attempt 
to  find  any  other  cause  than  an  honest  one 
for  these  scruples?  Sir,  I  did  not.  It  did 
not  become  me  to  doubt  or  to  insinuate 
that  the  gentleman  had  either  changed 
his  sentiments,  or  that  he  had  made  up  a 
set  of  constitutional  opinions  accommo 
dated  to  any  particular  combination  of 
political  occurrences.  Had  I  done  so,  I 
should  have  felt,  that,  while  I  was  enti 
tled  to  little  credit  in  thus  questioning 
other  people's  motives,  I  justified  t-he 
whole  world  in  suspecting  my  own.  But 
how  has  the  gentleman  returned  this 
respect  for  others'  opinions?  His  own 
candor  and  justice,  how  have  they  been 
exhibited  towards  the  motives  of  others, 
while  he  has  been  at  so  much  pains  to 
maintain,  what  nobody  has  disputed, 
the  purity  of  his  own?  Why,  Sir,  he 
has  asked  when,  and  how,  and  why  New 
England  votes  were  found  going  for 
measures  favorable  to  the  VVrest.  He  has 
demanded  to  be  informed  whether  all 
this  did  not  begin  in  1825,  and  while  the 
election  of  President  was  still  pending. 

Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be 
justified;  and  it  is  both  cogent  and  at 
hand.  Nevertheless,  I  will  answer  the 
inquiry,  not  by  retort,  but  by  facts.  I 
will  tell  the  gentleman  when,  arid  how, 
and  why  New  England  has  supported 
measures  favorable  to  the  West.  I  have 
already  referred  to  the  early  history  of 
the  government,  to  the  first  acquisition 
of  the  lands,  to  the  original  laws  for 
disposing  of  them,  and  for  governing 
the  territories  where  they  lie ;  and  have 
shown  the  influence  of  New  England 
men  and  New  England  principles  in 
all  these  leading  measures.  I  should 
not  be  pardoned  were  I  to  go  over 
that  ground  again.  Coming  to  more 
recent  times,  and  to  measures  of  a  less 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


241 


general  character,  I  have  endeavored  to 
prove  that  every  thing  of  this  kind,  de 
signed  for  Western  improvement,  has  de 
pended  on  the  votes  of  New  England; 
all  this  is  true  beyond  the  power  of  con 
tradiction.  And  now,  Sir,  there  are  two 
measures  to  which  I  will  refer,  not  so 
ancient  as  to  belong  to  the  early  history 
of  the  public  lands,  and  not  so  recent  as 
to  be  on  this  side  of  the  period  when 
the  gentleman  charitably  imagines  a 
new  direction  may  have  been  given  to 
New  England  feeling  and  New  England 
votes.  These  measures,  and  the  New 
England  votes  in  support  of  them,  may 
be  taken  as  samples  and  specimens  of  all 
the  rest. 

In  1820  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in 
1820)  the  people  of  the  West  besought 
Congress  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of 
lands.  In  favor  of  that  reduction,  New 
England,  with  a  delegation  of  forty 
members  in  the  other  house,  gave  thirty- 
three  votes,  and  one  only  against  it. 
The  four  Southern  States,  with  more 
than  fifty  members,  gave  thirty-two  votes 
for  it,  and  seven  against  it.  Again,  in 
1821,  (observe  again,  Sir,  the  time,)  the 
law  passed  for  the  relief  of  the  purchas 
ers  of  the  public  lands.  This  was  a 
measure  of  vital  importance  to  the  West, 
and  more  especially  to  the  Southwest. 
It  authorized  the  relinquishment  of  con 
tracts  for  lands  which  had  been  entered 
into  at  high  prices,  and  a  reduction  in 
other  cases  of  not  less  than  thirty-seven 
and  a  half  per  cent  on  the  purchase- 
money.  Many  millions  of  dollars,  six 
or  seven,  I  believe,  probably  much  more, 
were  relinquished  by  this  law.  On  this 
bill,  New  England,  with  her  forty  mem 
bers,  gave  more  affirmative  votes  than 
the  four  Southern  States,  with  their  fifty- 
two  or  fifty- three  members.  These  two 
are  far  the  most  important  general  meas 
ures  respecting  the  public  lands  which 
have  been  adopted  within  the  last  twenty 
years.  They  took  place  in  1820  and 
1821.  That  is  the  time  when. 

As  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman 
already  sees  that  it  was  by  voting  in 
solid  column  for  the  required  relief; 
and,  lastly,  as  to  the  cause  why,  I  tell 
the  gentleman  it  was  because  the  mem 


bers  from  New  England  thought  the 
measures  just  and  salutary;  because  they 
entertained  towards  the  West  neither 
envy,  hatred,  nor  malice;  because  they 
deemed  it  becoming  them,  as  just  and 
enlightened  public  men,  to  meet  the  ex 
igency  which  had  arisen  in  the  West 
with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief: 
because  they  felt  it  due  to  their  own 
characters,  and  the  characters  of  their 
New  England  predecessors  in  this  gov 
ernment,  to  act  towards  the  new  States 
in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patronizing, 
magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  Sir,  for 
the  cause  why ;  and  I  hope  that  by  this 
time,  Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  is 
satisfied;  if  not,  I  do  not  know  when,  or 
how,  or  why  he  ever  will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  impor 
tant  measures,  in  answer  to  the  gentle 
man's  inquiries,  I  must  now  beg  per 
mission  to  go  back  to  a  period  somewhat 
earlier,  for  the  purpose  of  still  further 
showing  how  much,  or  rather  how  little, 
reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's  in 
sinuation  that  political  hopes  or  fears,. or 
party  associations,  were  the  grounds  -of 
these  New  England  votes.  And  after 
what  has  been  said,  I  hope  it  may.be 
forgiven  me  if  I  allude  to  some  political 
opinions  and  votes  of  my  own,  of  very 
little  public  importance  certainly,  but 
which,  from  the  time  at  which  they  were 
given  and  expressed,  may  pass  for  good 
witnesses  on  this  occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from 
its  origin  to  the  peace  of  1815,  had  been 
too  much  engrossed  with  various  other 
important  concerns  to  be  able  to  turn 
its  thoughts  inward,  and  look  to  the  de 
velopment  of  its  vast  internal  resources. 
In  the  early  part  of  President  Wash 
ington's  administration,  it  was  fully 
occupied  with  completing  its  own  or 
ganization,  providing  for  the  public 
debt,  defending  the  frontiers,  and  main 
taining  domestic  peace.  Before  the  ter 
mination  of  that  administration,  the 
fires  of  the  French  Revolution  blazed 
forth,  as  from  a  new-opened  volcano, 
and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  ocean  did 
not  secure  us  from  its  effects.  The  smoke 
and  the  cinders  reached  us,  though  not 
the  burning  lava.  Difficult  and  agitating 


16 


242 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


questions,  embarrassing  to  government 
and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung  out 
of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations, 
and  were  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet 
again  by  others,  equally  embarrassing 
and  equally  exciting  division  and  dis 
cord,  through  the  long  series  of  twenty 
years,  till  they  finally  issued  in  the  war 
with  England.  Down  to  the  close  of 
that  war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and  de 
liberate  attention  had  been  given,  or 
could  have  been  given,  to  the  internal 
condition  of  the  country,  its  capacities  of 
improvement,  or  the  constitutional  power 
of  the  government  in  regard  to  objects 
connected  with  such  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought 
about  an  entirely  new  and  a  most  inter 
esting  state  of  things;  it  opened  to  us 
other  prospects  and  suggested  other  du 
ties.  We  ourselves  were  changed,  and 
the  whole  world  was  changed.  The 
pacification  of  Europe,  after  June,  1815, 
assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect. 
The  nations  evidently  manifested  that 
they  were  disposed  for  peace.  Some 
agitation  of  the  waves  might  be  expected, 
even  after  the  storm  had  subsided ;  but 
the  tendency  was,  strongly  and  rapidly, 
towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  Sir,  that  I  was  at  that 
time  a  member  of  Congress,  and,  like 
others,  naturally  turned  my  thoughts  to 
the  contemplation  of  the  recently  altered 
condition  of  the  country  and  of  the 
world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to 
me,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and  more  experi 
enced  men,  that  the  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment  would  naturally  take  a  start  in 
a  new  direction;  because  new  directions 
would  necessarily  be  given  to  the  pur 
suits  and  occupations  of  the  people.  We 
had  pushed  our  commerce  far  and  fast, 
under  the  advantage  of  a  neutral  flag. 
But  there  were  now  no  longer  flags, 
either  neutral  or  belligerent.  The  har 
vest  of  neutrality  had  been  great,  but 
we  had  gathered  it  all.  With  the  peace 
of  Europe,  it  was  obvious  there  would 
spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations  a  re 
vived  and  invigorated  spirit  of  trade, 
and  a  new  activity  in  all  the  business 
and  objects  of  civilized  life.  Hereafter, 
our  commercial  gains  were  to  be  earned 


only  by  success  in  a  close  and  intense 
competition.  Other  nations  would  pro 
duce  for  themselves,  and  carry  for  them 
selves,  and  manufacture  for  themselves, 
to  the  fujl  extent  of  their  abilities.  The 
crops  of  our  plains  would  no  longer  sus 
tain  European  armies,  nor  our  ships 
longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  ren 
dered  unable  to  supply  themselves.  It 
was  obvious,  that,  under  these  circum 
stances,  the  country  would  begin  to 
survey  itself,  and  to  estimate  its  own 
capacity  of  Improvement. 

And  this  improvement,  — how  was  it 
to  be  accomplished,  and  who  was  to  ac 
complish  it?  We  were  ten  or  twelve 
millions  of  people,  spread  over  almost 
half  a  world.  We  were  more  than 
twenty  States,  some  stretching  along 
the  same  seaboard,  some  along  the  same 
line  of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on 
opposite  banks  of  the  same  vast  rivers. 
Two  considerations  at  once  presented 
themselves  with  great  force,  in  looking 
at  this  state  of  things.  One  was,  that 
that  great  branch  of  improvement  which 
consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of 
intercourse  necessarily  ran  into  different 
States  in  every  leading  instance,  and 
would  benefit  the  citizens  of  all  such 
States.  No  one  State,  therefore,  in 
such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  ex 
pense,  nor  was  the  co-operation  of  sev 
eral  States  to  be  expected.  Take  the 
instance  of  the  Delaware  breakwater. 
It  will  cost  several  millions  of  money. 
Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have 
constructed  it?  Certainly  never,  while 
this  Union  lasts,  because  it  is  not  for 
her  sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsylvania, 
New  Jersey,  and  Delaware  have  united 
to  accomplish  it  at  their  joint  expense  ? 
Certainly  not,  for  the  same  reason.  It 
could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but  by  the 
general  government.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  large  inland  undertakings, 
except  that,  in  them,  government,  in 
stead  of  bearing  the  whole  expense, 
co-operates  with  others  who  bear  a  part. 
The  other  consideration  is,  that  the 
United  States  have  the  means.  They 
enjoy  the  revenues  derived  from  com 
merce,  and  the  States  have  no  abundant 
and  easy  sources  of  public  income.  The 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


243 


custom-houses  fill  the  general  treasury, 
while  the  States  have  scanty  resources, 
except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct  taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought 
it  necessary  to  settle,  at  least  for  myself, 
some  definite  notions  with  respect  to  the 
powers  of  the  government  in  regard  to 
internal  affairs.  It  may  not  savor  too 
much  of  self-commendation  to  remark, 
that,  with  this  object,  I  considered  the 
Constitution,  its  judicial  construction, 
its  contemporaneous  exposition,  and  the 
whole  history  of  the  legislation  of  Con 
gress  under  it;  and  I  arrived  at  the 
conclusion,  that  government  had  power 
to  accomplish  sundry  objects,  or  aid  in 
their  accomplishment,  which  are  now 
commonly  spoken  of  as  INTERNAL  IM 
PROVEMENTS.  That  conclusion,  Sir, 
may  have  been  right,  or  it  may  have 
been  wrong.  I  am  not  about  to  argue 
the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say  only, 
that  it  was  adopted  and  acted  on  even 
so  early  as  in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  Presi 
dent,  I  made  up  my  opinion,  and  deter 
mined  on  my  intended  course  of  political 
conduct,  on  these  subjects,  in  the  Four 
teenth  Congress,  in  1816.  And  now, 
Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  say, 
that  I  made  up  these  opinions,  and  en 
tered  on  this  course  of  political  conduct, 
Teucro  duce.1  Yes,  Sir,  I  pursued  in  all 
this  a  South  Carolina  track  on  the  doc 
trines  of  internal  improvement.  South 
Carolina,  as  she  was  then  represented  in 
the  other  house,  set  forth  in  1816  under 
a  fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was 
among  the  followers.  But  if  my  leader 
sees  new  lights  and  turns  a  sharp  cor 
ner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep 
straight  on  in  the  same  path.  I  repeat, 
that  leading  gentlemen  from  South  Caro 
lina  were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of 
the  doctrines  of  internal  improvements, 
when  those  doctrines  came  first  to  be 
considered  and  acted  upon  in  Congress/* 
The  debate  on  the  bank  question,  on  the 
tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the  direct  tax, 
will  show  who  was  who,  and  what  was 
what,  at  that  time. 

The  tariff  of  1816,  (one  of  the  plain 

1  Mr.  Calhoun,  when  this  speech  was  made, 
was  President,  of  the  Senate,  and  Vice-Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States. 


cases  of  oppression  and  usurpation ,  from 
which,  if  the  government  does  not  re 
cede,  individual  States  may  justly  secede 
from  the  government,)  is,  Sir,  in  truth, 
a  South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by 
South  Carolina  votes.  But  for  those 
votes,  it  could  not  have  passed  in  the 
form  in  which  it  did  pass;  whereas,  if 
it  had  depended  on  Massachusetts  votes, 
it  would  have  been  lost.  Does  not  the 
honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this? 
There  are  certainly  those  who  do,  full 
well,  know  it  all.  I  do  not  say  this  to 
reproach  South  Carolina.  I  only  state 
the  fact;  and  I  think  it  will  appear  to 
be  true,  that  among  the  earliest  and 
boldest  advocates  of  the  tariff,  as  a 
measure  of  protection,  and  on  the  ex 
press  ground  of  protection,  were  leading 
gentlemen  of  South  Carolina  in  Con 
gress.  I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now, 
understand  their  language  in  any  other 
sense.  While  this  tariff  of  1816  was 
under  discussion  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  an  honorable  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  now  of  this  house,2  moved  to 
reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  cotton.  He 
failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Carolina  giv 
ing  three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned  the 
s^le)  against  his  motion.  The  act,  Sir, 
then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage 
the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  Repre 
sentatives  of  South  Carolina  present 
and  voting.  This  act  is  the  first  in  the 
order  of  those  now  denounced  as  plain 
usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the 
list,  by  the  side  of  those  of  1824  and 
1828,  as  a  case  oi  manifest  oppression, 
justifying  disunion.  I  put  it  home  to 
the  honorable  member  from  South  Caro 
lina,  that  his  o\vn  State  was  not  only 
"  art  and  part  "in  this  measure,  but  the 
causa  causans.  Without  her  aid,  this 
seminal  principle  of  mischief,  this  root 
of  Upas,  could  not  have  been  planted. 
I  have  already  said,  and  it  is  true,  that 
this  act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  pro 
tection.  It  interfered  directly  with  exist 
ing  interests  of  great  value  and  amount. 
It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by 
the  roots;  but  it  passed,  nevertheless, 
and  it  passed  on  the  principle  of  pro 
tecting  manufactures,  on  the  principle 

2  Mr.  Forsvth. 


244 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


against  free  trade,  on  the  principle  op 
posed  to  that  which  lets  us  alone. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opin 
ions  of  important  and  leading  gentlemen 
from  South  Carolina,  on  the  subject  of 
internal  improvement,  in  1816.  I  went 
out  of  Congress  the  next  year,  and,  re 
turning  again  in  1823,  thought  I  found 
South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her.  I 
really  supposed  that  all  things  remained 
as  they  were,  and  that  the  South  Caro 
lina  doctrine  of  internal  improvements 
would  be  defended  by  the  same  eloquent 
voices,  and  the  same  strong  arms,  as 
formerly.  In  the  lapse  of  these  six 
years,  it  is  true,  political  associations 
had  assumed  a  new  aspect  and  new  di 
visions.  A  strong  party  had  arisen  in 
the  South  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  in 
ternal  improvements.  Anti-consolida 
tion  was  the  flag  under  which  this  party 
fought;  and  its  supporters  inveighed 
against  internal  improvements,  much 
after  the  manner  in  which  the  honorable 
gentleman  has  now  inveighed  against 
them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system 
of  consolidation.  Whether  this  party 
arose  in  South  Carolina  itself,  or  in  the 
neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  I 
think  the  latter.  However  that  may 
have  been,  there  were  those  found  in 
South  Carolina  ready  to  make  war  upon 
it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid  war  upon 
it.  Names  being  regarded  as  things  in 
such  controversies,  they  bestowed  on 
the  anti-improvement  gentlemen  the  ap 
pellation  of  Radicals.  Yes,  Sir,  the 
appellation  of  Radicals,  as  a  term  of 
distinction  applicable  and  applied  to 
those  who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines 
of  internal  improvement,  originated, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
somewhere  between  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  Well,  Sir,  these  mischievous 
Radicals  were  to  be  put  down,  and  the 
strong  arm  of  South  Carolina  was 
stretched  out  to  put  them  down.  About 
this  time  I  returned  to  Congress.  The 
battle  with  the  Radicals  had  been 
fought,  and  our  South  Carolina  cham 
pions  of  the  doctrines  of  internal  im 
provement  had  nobly  maintained  their 
ground,  and  were  understood  to  have 
achieved  a  victory.  We  looked  upon 


them  as  conquerors.  They  had  driven 
back  the  enemy  with  discomfiture,  a 
thing,  by  the  way,  Sir,  which  is  not 
always  performed  when  it  is  promised. 
A  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  already 
referred  in  this  debate  had  come  into 
Congress,  during  my  absence  from  it, 
from  South  Carolina,  and  had  brought 
with  him  a  high  reputation  for  ability, 
lie  came  from  a  school  with  which  we 
had  been  acquainted,  et  noscitur  a  svciis. 
I  hold  in  my  hand,  Sir,  a  printed  speech 
of  this  distinguished  gentleman,1  "  ON 
INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS,"  delivered 
about  the  period  to  which  I  now  refer, 
and  printed  with  a  few  introductory  re 
marks  upon  consolidation;  in  which,  Sir, 
I  think  he  quite  consolidated  the  argu 
ments  of  his  opponents,  the  Radicals,  if 
to  crush  be  to  consolidate.  I  give  you 
a  short  but  significant  quotation  from 
these  remarks.  He  is  speaking  of  a 
pamphlet,  then  recently  published,  en 
titled  "  Consolidation  ";  and,  having  al 
luded  to  the  question  of  renewing  the 
charter  of  the  former  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  he  says:  — 

"  Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties, 
and  when  Mr.  Crawford  advocated  a  re 
newal  of  the  old  charter,  it  was  considered 
a  Federal  measure ;  which  internal  improve 
ment  never  was,  as  this  author  erroneously 
states.  This  latter  measure  originated  in 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the 
appropriation  for  the  Cumberland  Road  ; 
and  was  first  proposed,  as  a  system,  by  Mr. 
Calhoun,  and  carried  through  the  House  of 
Representatives  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
Republicans,  including  almost  every  one  of 
the  leading  men  who  carried  us  through  the 
late  war." 

So,  then,  internal  improvement  is  not 
one  of  the  Federal  heresies.  One  para 
graph  more,  Sir:  — 

"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with 
denouncing  as  Federalists,  General  Jackson, 
Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  majority 
of  the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Con 
gress,  modestly  extends  the  denunciation 
to  Mr.  Monroe  and  the  whole  Republican 
party.  Here  are  his  words :  '  During  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Monroe  much  has 
passed  which  the  Republican  party  would 

l  Mr.  McDuffie. 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


245 


be  glad  to  approve  if  they  could ! !  But  the 
principal  feature,  and  that  which  has  chiefly 
elicited  these  observations,  is  the  renewal 
of  the  SYSTEM  OF  INTERNAL  IMPROVE 
MENTS.'  Now  this  measure  was  adopted  by 
a  vote  of  115  to  86  of  a  Republican  Con 
gress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  Republican  Pres 
ident.  Who,  then,  is  this  author,  who  as 
sumes  the  high  prerogative  of  denouncing, 
in  the  name  of  the  Republican  party,  the 
Republican  administration  of  the  coun 
try  ?  A  denunciation  including  within  its 
sweep  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  and  Cheves,  men 
who  will  be  regarded  as  the  brightest  orna 
ments  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  strongest 
pillars  of  the  Republican  party,  as  long  as 
the  late  war  shall  be  remembered,  and  tal 
ents  and  patriotism  shall  be  regarded  as  the 
proper  objects  of  the  admiration  and  grati 
tude  of  a  free  people ! !  " 

Such  are  the  opinions,  Sir,  which  were 
maintained  by  South  Carolina  gentle 
men,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements, 
when  I  took  my  seat  there  as  a  member 
from  Massachusetts  in  1823.  But  this 
is  not  all.  We  had  a  bill  before  us,  and 
passed  it  in  that  house,  entitled,  "An 
Act  to  procure  the  necessary  surveys, 
plans,  and  estimates  upon  the  subject  of 
roads  and  canals."  It  authorized  the 
President  to  cause  surveys  and  estimates 
to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such  roads 
and  canals  as  he  might  deem  of  national 
importance  in  a  commercial  or  military 
point  of  view,  or  for  the  transportation 
of  the  mail,  and  appropriated  thirty 
thousand  dollars  out  of  the  treasury  to 
defray  the  expense.  This  act,  though 
preliminary  in  its  nature,  covered  the 
whole  ground.  It  took  for  granted  the 
complete  power  of  internal  improvement, 
as  far  as  any  of  its  advocates  had  ever 
contended  for  it.  Having  passed  the 
other  house,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Sen 
ate,  and  was  here  considered  and  debated 
in  April,  1824.  The  honorable  member 
from  South  Carolina  was  a  member  of 
the  Senate  at  that  time.  While  the  bill 
was  under  consideration  here,  a  motion 
was  made  to  add  the  following  proviso : 
"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  con 
tained  shall  be  construed  to  affirm  or 
admit  a  power  in  Congress,  on  their  own 
authority,  to  make  roads  or  canals  within 


any  of  the  States  of  the  Union."  The 
yeas  and  nays  were  taken  on  this  proviso, 
and  the  honorable  member  voted  in  the 
negative !  The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add 
this  proviso,  viz.:  "Provided,  That  the 
faith  of  the  United  States  is  hereby 
pledged,  that  no  money  shall  ever  be  ex 
pended  for  roads  or  canals,  except  it 
shall  be  among  the  several  States,  and 
in  the  same  proportion  as  direct  taxes 
are  laid  and  assessed  by  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution."  The  honorable 
member  voted  against  this  proviso  also, 
and  it  failed.  The  bill  was  then  put  on 
its  passage,  and  the  honorable  member 
voted  for  it,  and  it  passed,  and  became 
a  law. 

Now,  it  strikes  me,  Sir,  that  there  is 
no  maintaining  these  votes,  but  upon 
the  power  of  internal  improvement,  in 
its  broadest  sense.  In  truth,  these  bills 
for  surveys  and  estimates  have  always 
been  considered  as  test  questions;  they 
show  who  is  for  and  who  against  internal 
improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the 
whole  length,  and  assumed  the  full  and 
complete  power.  The  gentleman's  votes 
sustained  that  power,  in  every  form  in 
which  the  various  propositions  to  amend 
presented  it.  He  went  for  the  entire 
and  unrestrained  authority,  without  con 
sulting  the  States,  and  without  agreeing 
to  ariy  proportionate  distribution.  And 
now  suffer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr.  Pres 
ident,  that  it  is  this  very  same  power, 
thus  sanctioned,  in  every  form,  by  the 
gentleman's  own  opinion,  which  is  so 
plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation,  that 
the  State  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed 
to  be  justified  in  refusing  submission  to 
any  laws  carrying  the  power  into  effect. 
Truly,  Sir,  is  not  this  a  little  too  hard  ? 
May  we  not  crave  some  mercy,  under 
favor  and  protection  of  the  gentleman's 
own  authority  ?  Admitting  that  a  road, 
or  a  canal,  must  be  written  down  flat 
usurpation  as  was  ever  committed,  may 
we  find  no  mitigation  in  our  respect  for 
his  place,  and  his  vote,  as  one  that 
knows  the  law  ? 

The  tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had 
an  efficient  hand  in  establishing,  in  1816, 
and  this  asserted  power  of  internal  im- 


246 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


provement,  advanced  by  her  in  the  same 
year,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  approved 
and  sanctioned  by  her  Representatives  in 
1824,  —  these  two  measures  are  the  great 
grounds  on  which  she  is  now  thought  to 
be  justified  in  breaking  up  the  Union,  if 
she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up ! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that 
we  have  had  the  authority  of  leading  and 
distinguished  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
internal  improvement.  I  repeat,  that, 
up  to  1824,  I  for  one  followed  South 
Carolina;  but  when  that  star,  in  its  as 
cension,  veered  off  in  an  unexpected  di 
rection,  I  relied  on  its  light  no  longer. 

Here  the  Vice-President  said,  "  Does  the 
chair  understand  the  gentleman  from  Mas 
sachusetts  to  say  that  the  person  now  oc 
cupying  the  chair  of  the  Senate  has  changed 
his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  internal  im 
provements  ? " 

From  nothing  ever  said  to  me,  Sir, 
have  I  had  reason  to  know  of  any  change 
in  the  opinions  of  the  person  filling  the 
chair  of  the  Senate.  If  such  change  has 
taken  place,  I  regret  it.  I  speak  gener 
ally  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  In 
dividuals  we  know  there  are  who  hold 
opinions  favorable  to  the  power.  An 
application  for  its  exercise,  in  behalf  of 
a  public  work  in  South  Carolina  itself, 
is  now  pending,  I  believe,  in  the  other 
house,  presented  by  members  from  that 
State. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  perhaps  not  without 
some  tediousness  of  detail,  shown,  if  I 
am  in  error  on  the  subject  of  internal 
improvement,  how,  and  in  what  com 
pany,  I  fell  into  that  error.  If  I  am 
wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled  me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honor 
able  member;  and  I  have  to  complain 
of  an  entire  misapprehension  of  what  I 
said  on  the  subject  of  the  national  debt, 
though  I  can  hardly  perceive  how  any 
one  could  misunderstand  me.  What  I 
said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off  the 
payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  con 
trary,  that  I  had  always  voted  for  every 
measure  for  its  reduction,  as  uniformly 
as  the  gentleman  himself.  He  seems  to 
claim  the  exclusive  merit  of  a  disposi 


tion  to  reduce  the  public  charge.  I  do 
not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was, 
I  am  for  paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge 
on  our  finances,  and  on  the  industry  of 
the  coirritry.  But  I  observed,  that  I 
thought  I  perceived  a  morbid  fervor  on 
that  subject,  an  excessive  anxiety  to  pay 
off  the  debt,  not  so  much  because  it  is  a 
debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it  lasts,  it 
furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.  It 
is,  while  it  continues,  a  tie  of  common 
interest.  I,  did  not  impute  such  motives 
to  the  honorable  member  himself,  but 
that  there  is  such  a  feeling  in  existence 
I  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The 
most  I  said  was,  that,  if  one  effect  of  the 
debt  was  to  strengthen  our  Union,  that 
effect  itself  was  not  regretted  by  me, 
however  much  others  might  regret  it. 
The  gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  re 
ply  to  this,  otherwise  than  by  supposing 
me  to  have  advanced  the  doctrine  that 
a  national  debt  is  a  national  blessing. 
Others,  I  must  hope,  will  find  much  less 
difficulty  in  understanding  me.  I  dis 
tinctly  and  pointedly  cautioned  the  hon 
orable  member  not  to  understand  me  as 
expressing  an  opinion  favorable  to  the 
continuance  of  the  debt.  I  repeated 
this  caution,  and  repeated  it  more  than 
once ;  but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more 
I  unaccountably  misunderstood.  The  gen- 
jtleman  had  harangued  against  "  consoli 
dation."  I  told  him,  in  reply,  that  there 
was  one  kind  of  consolidation  to  which 
I  was  attached,  and  that  was  the  con 
solidation  of  our  Union ;  that  this  was 
precisely  that  consolidation  to  which  1 
feared  others  were  not  attached,  and 
that  such  consolidation  was  the  very 
end  of  the  Constitution,  the  leading 
object,  as  they  had  informed  us  them 
selves,  which  its  framers  had  kept  in 
view.  I  turned  to  their  communica 
tion,1  and  read  their  very  words,  "the 
consolidation  of  the  Union,"  and  ex 
pressed  my  devotion  to  this  sort  of  con 
solidation.  I  said,  in  terms,  that  I 
wished  not  in  the  slightest  degree  to 
augment  the  powers  of  this  government; 

1  The  letter  of  the  Federal  Convention  to  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation  transmitting  the 
plan  of  the  Constitution. 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


247 


that  my  object  was  to  preserve,  not  to 
enlarge;  and  that  by  consolidating  the 
Union  I  understood  no  more  than  the 
.strengthening  of  the  Union,  and  per 
petuating  it.  Having  been  thus  ex 
plicit,  having  thus  read  from  the  printed 
book  the  precise  words  which  I  adopted, 
as  expressing  my  own  sentiments,  it 
passes  comprehension  how  any  man 
could  understand  me  as  contending  for 
an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  gov 
ernment,  or  for  consolidation  in  that 
odious  sense  in  which  it  means  an  ac 
cumulation,  in  the  federal  government, 
of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to  the 
States. 

I  repeat,  Sir,  that,  in  adopting  the 
sentiment  of  the  frainers  of  the  Consti 
tution,  I  read  their  language  audibly, 
and  word  for  word;  and  I  pointed  out 
the  distinction,  just  as  fully  as  I  have 
now  done,  between  the  consolidation  of 
the  Union  and  that  other  obnoxious  con 
solidation  which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet 
the  honorable  member  misunderstood 
me.  The  gentleman  had  said  that  he 
wished  for  no  fixed  revenue,  —  not  a 
shilling.  If  by  a  word  he  could  convert 
the  Capitol  into  gold,  he  would  not  do 
it.  Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue?  Why, 
Sir,  because,  as  the  gentleman  told  us, 
it  tends  to  consolidation.  Now  this  can 
mean  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  a 
common  revenue  is  a  common  interest, 
and  that  all  common  interests  tend  to 
preserve  the  union  of  the  States.  I  con 
fess  I  like  that  tendency;  if  the  gentle 
man  dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecat 
ing  a  shilling  of  fixed  revenue.  So 
much,  Sir,  for  consolidation. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his 
remarks,  the  honorable  gentleman  next 
recurred  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff. 
He  did  not  doubt  the  word  must  be  of 
unpleasant  sound  to  me,  and  proceeded, 
with  an  effort  neither  new  nor  attended 
with  new  success,  to  involve  me  and  my 
votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction. 
I  am  happy  the  honorable  gentleman 
has  furnished  me  an  opportunity  of  a 
timely  remark  or  two  on  that  subject. 
I  was  glad  he  approached  it,  for  it  is 
a  question  T  enter  upon  without  fear 
from  anvbodv.  The  strenuous  toil  of  the 


gentleman  has  been  to  raise  an  incon 
sistency  between  my  dissent  to  the  tariff 
in  1824,  and  my  vote  in  1828.  It  is 
labor  lost.  He  pays  undeserved  com 
pliment  to  my  speech  in  1821;  but  this 
is  to  raise  me  high,  that  my  fall,  as  he 
would  have  it,  in  1828,  may  be  more 
signal.  Sir,  there  was  no  fall.  Be 
tween  the  ground  I  stood  on  in  1824 
and  that  I  took  in  1828,  there  was  not 
only  no  precipice,  but  no  declivity.  It 
was  a  change  of  position  to  meet  new 
circumstances,  but  on  the  same  level. 
A  plain  tale  explains  the  whole  matter. 
In  1816  I  had  not  acquiesced  in  the 
tariff,  then  supported  by  South  Caro 
lina.  To  some  parts  of  it,  especially,  1 
felt  and  expressed  great  repugnance.  I 
held  the  same  opinions  in  1820,  at  the 
meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  which  the 
gentleman  has  alluded.  I  said  then, 
and  say  now,  that,  as  an  original  ques 
tion,  the  authority  of  Congress  to  ex 
ercise  the  revenue  power,  with  direct 
reference  to  the  protection  of  manufac 
tures,  is  a  questionable  authority,  far 
more  questionable,  in  my  judgment, 
than  the  power  of  internal  improve 
ments.  I  must  confess,  Sir,  that  in  one 
respect  some  impression  has  been  made 
on  my  opinions  lately.  Mr.  Madison's 
publication  has  put  the  power  in  a  very 
strong  light.  He  has  placed  it,  I  must 
acknowledge,  upon  grounds  of  construc 
tion  and  argument  which  seem  impreg 
nable.  But  even  if  the  power  were 
doubtful,  on  the  face  of  the  Constitu 
tion  itself,  it  had  been  assumed  and 
asserted  in  the  first  revenue  law  ever 
passed  under  that  same  Constitution ; 
and  on  this  ground,  as  a  matter  settled 
by  contemporaneous  practice,  I  had 
refrained  from  expressing  the  opinion 
that  the  tariff  laws  transcended  consti 
tutional  limits,  as  the  gentleman  sup 
poses.  What  I  did  say  at  Faneuil  Hall, 
as  far  as  I  now  remember,  was,  that 
this  was  originally  matter  of  doubtful 
construction.  The  gentleman  himself, 
I  suppose,  thinks  there  is  no  doubt 
about  it,  and  that  the  lawrs  are  plainly 
against  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Madi 
son's  letters,  already  referred  to,  con 
tain,  in  my  judgment,  by  far  the  most 


248 


THE   REPLY   TO  HAYNE. 


able  exposition  extant  of  this  part  of 
the  Constitution.  He  has  satisfied  me, 
so  far  as  the  practice  of  the  government 
had  left  it  an  open  question. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  Repre 
sentatives  of  Massachusetts,  I  voted 
against  the  tariff  of  1824.  My  reasons 
were  then  given,  and  I  will  not  now  re 
peat  them.  But,  notwithstanding  our 
dissent,  the  great  States  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky  went 
for  the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column, 
and  it  passed.  Congress  and  the  Presi 
dent  sanctioned  it,  and  it  became  the 
law  of  the  land.  What,  then,  were  we 
to  do?  Our  only  option  was,  either  to 
fall  in  with  this  settled  course  of  public 
policy,  and  accommodate  ourselves  to 
it  as  well  as  we  could,  or  to  embrace  the 
South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  talk  of 
nullifying  the  statute  by  State  interfer 
ence. 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our 
principles,  and  of  course  we  adopted  the 
former.  In  1827,  the  subject  came  again 
before  Congress,  on  a  proposition  to 
afford  some  relief  to  the  branch  of  wool 
and  woollens.  We  looked  upon  the  sys 
tem  of  protection  as  being  fixed  and 
settled.  The  law  of  1821  remained.  It 
had  gone  into  full  operation,  and,  in  re 
gard  to  some  objects  intended  by  it,  per 
haps  most  of  them,  had  produced  all  its 
expected  effects.  No  man  proposed  to 
repeal  it;  no  man  attempted  to  renew 
the  general  contest  on  its  principle. 
But,  owing  to  subsequent  and  unfore 
seen  occurrences,  the  benefit  intended 
by  it  to  wool  and  woollen  fabrics  had 
not  been  realized.  Events  not  known 
here  when  the  law  passed  had  taken 
place,  which  defeated  its  object  in  that 
particular  respect.  A  measure  was  ac 
cordingly  brought  forward  to  meet  this 
precise  deficiency,  to  remedy  this  par 
ticular  defect.  It  was  limited  to  wool 
and  woollens.  Was  ever  any  thing  more 
reasonable?  If  the  policy  of  the  tariff 
laws  had  become  established  in  princi 
ple,  as  the  permanent  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment,  should  they  not  be  revised  and 
amended,  and  made  equal,  like  other 
laws,  as  exigencies  should  arise,  or  jus 
tice  require?  Because  we  had  doubted 


about  adopting  the  system,  were  we  to 
refuse  to  cure  its  manifest  defects,  after 
it  had  been  adopted,  and  when  no  one 
attempted  its  repeal?  And  this,  Sir,  is 
the  inconsistency  so  much  bruited.  I 
had  voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824,  but 
it  passed;  and  in  1827  and  1828  I  voted 
to  amend  it,  in  a  point  essential  to  the 
interest  of  my  constituents.  Where  is 
the  inconsistency?  Could  I  do  other 
wise?  Sir,  does  political  consistency 
consist  in  always  giving  negative  votes  ? 
Does  it  require  of  a  public  man  to  re 
fuse  to  concur  in  amending  laws,  be 
cause  they  passed  against  his  consent? 
Having  voted  against  the  tariff  origi 
nally,  does  consistency  demand  that  I 
should  do  all  in  my  power  to  maintain 
an  unequal  tariff,  burdensome  to  my 
own  constituents  in  many  respects,  fa 
vorable  in  none?  To  consistency  of  that 
sort,  I  lay  no  claim.  And  there  is  an 
other  sort  to  which  I  lay  as  little,  and 
that  is,  a  kind  of  consistency  by  which 
persons  feel  themselves  as  much  bound 
to  oppose  a  proposition  after  it  has  be 
come  a  law  of  the  land  as  before. 

The  bill  of  1827,  limited,  as  I  have 
said,  to  the  single  object  in  which  the 
tariff  of  1824  had  manifestly  failed  in 
its  effect,  passed  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  but  was  lost  here.  We  had 
then  the  act  of  1828.  I  need  not  recur 
to  the  history  of  a  measure  so  re 
cent.  Its  enemies  spiced  it  with  what 
soever  they  thought  would  render  it  dis 
tasteful;  its  friends  took  it,  drugged 
as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of  property, 
many  millions,  had  been  invested  in 
manufactures,  under  the  inducements  of 
the  act  of  1824.  Invents  called  loudly,  as 
I  thought,  for  further  regulation  to  secure 
the  degree  of  protection  intended  by  that 
act.  I  was  disposed  to  vote  for  such 
regulation,  and  desired  nothing  more; 
but  certainly  was  not  to  be  bantered  out 
of  my  purpose  by  a  threatened  augmen 
tation  of  duty  on  molasses,  put  into  the 
bill  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  making 
it  obnoxious.  The  vote  may  have  been 
right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise;  but  it 
is  little  less  than  absurd  to  allege  against 
it  an  inconsistency  with  opposition  to 
the  former  law. 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


249 


Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the 
tariff,  I  have  little  now  to  say.  Another 
opportunity  may  be  presented.  I  re 
marked  the  other  day,  that  this  policy 
did  not  begin  with  us  in  New  England; 
and  yet,  Sir,  New  England  is  charged 
with  vehemence  as  being  favorable,  or 
charged  with  equal  vehemence  as  being 
unfavorable,  to  the  tariff  policy,  just  as 
best  suits  the  time,  place,  and  occasion 
for  making  some  charge  against  her. 
The  credulity  of  the  public  has  been  put 
to  its  extreme  capacity  of  false  impres 
sion  relative  to  her  conduct  in  this  par 
ticular.  Through  all  the  South,  during 
the  late  contest,  it  was  New  England 
policy  and  a  New  England  administra 
tion  that  were  afflicting  the  country  with 
a  tariff  beyond  all  endurance ;  while  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Alleghanies  even 
the  act  of  1828  itself,  the  very  subli 
mated  essence  of  oppression,  according  to 
Southern  opinions,  was  pronounced  to  be 
one  of  those  blessings  for  which  the  West 
was  indebted  to  the  "  generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufac 
turing  establishments,  and  many  and 
various  interests  connected  with  and  de 
pendent  011  them,  it  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  New  England,  any  more  than  other 
portions  of  the  country,  wrill  now  con 
sent  to  any  measure  destructive  or  highly 
dangerous.  The  duty  of  the  govern 
ment,  at  the  present  moment,  would 
seem  to  be  to  preserve,  not  to  destroy; 
to  maintain  the  position  which  it  has  as 
sumed;  and,  for  one,  I  shall  feel  it  an 
indispensable  obligation  to  hold  it  steady, 
as  far  as  in  my  power,  to  that  degree  of 
protection  which  it  has  undertaken  to 
bestow.  No  more  of  the  tariff. 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he 
chose  to  consider  a  charge  made  by  me 
against  South  Carolina,  the  honorable 
member,  Mr.  President,  has  taken  up 
a  new  crusade  against  New  England. 
Leaving  altogether  the  subject  of  the 
public  lands,  in  which  his  success,  per 
haps,  had  been  neither  distinguished  nor 
satisfactory,  and  letting  go,  also,  of  the 
topic  of  the  tariff,  he  sallied  forth  in  a 
general  assault  on  the  opinions,  politics, 
and  parties  of  New  England,  as  they 
have  been  exhibited  in  the  last  thirty 


years.  This  is  natural.  The  "narrow 
policy  "  of  the  public  lands  had  proved 
a  legal  settlement  in  South  Carolina,  arid 
was  not  to  be  removed.  The  "  accursed 
policy  "  of  the  tariff,  also,  had  estab 
lished  the  fact  of  its  birth  and  parentage 
in  the  same  State.  No  wonder,  there 
fore,  the  gentleman  wished  to  carry  the 
war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's 
country.  Prudently  willing  to  quit  these 
subjects,  he  was,  doubtless,  desirous  of 
fastening  on  others,  which  could  not  be 
transferred  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line.  The  politics  of  New  England  be 
came  his  theme;  and  it  was  in  this  part 
of  his  speech,  I  think,  that  he  menaced 
me  with  such  sore  discomfiture.  Dis 
comfiture!  Why,  Sir,  when  he  attacks 
any  thing  which  I  maintain,  and  over 
throws  it,  when  he  turns  the  right  or 
left  of  any  position  which  I  take  up, 
when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I 
chcose  to  occupy,  he  may  then  talk  of 
discomfiture,  but  not  till  that  distant 
day.  What  has  he  done  ?  Has  he  main 
tained  his  own  charges  ?  Has  he  proved 
what  he  alleged  ?  Has  he  sustained  him 
self  in  his  attack  on  the  government, 
and  on  the  history  of  the  North,  in  the 
matter  of  the  public  lands  ?  Has  he  dis 
proved  a  fact,  refuted  a  proposition, 
weakened  an  argument,  maintained  by 
me  ?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum 
of  any  position  of  mine  ?  O,  no;  but  he 
has  "carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's 
country  " !  Carried  the  war  into  the  ene 
my's  country !  Yes,  Sir,  and  w^hat  sort  of 
a  war  has  he  made  of  it  ?  Why,  Sir,  he 
has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the  whole 
surface  of  perished  pamphlets,  indiscreet 
sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming 
popular  addresses,  —  over  whatever  the 
pulpit  in  its  moments  of  alarm,  the 
press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their 
extravagance,  have  severally  thrown  off 
in  times  of  general  excitement  and  vio 
lence.  He  has  thus  swept  together  a 
mass  of  such  things  as,  but  that  they  are 
now  old  and  cold,  the  public  health 
would  have  required  him  rather  to  leave 
in  their  state  of  dispersion.  For  a  good 
long  hour  or  two,  we  had  the  unbroken 
pleasure  of  listening  to  the  honorable 
member,  while  he  recited  with  his  usual 


250 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident  high 
gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses, 
and  all  the  et  cceteras  of  the  political 
press,  such  as  warm  heads  produce  in 
warm  times;  and  such  as  it  would  be 
"discomfiture"  indeed  for  any  one, 
whose  taste  did  not  delight  in  that  sort 
of  reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse.  This 
is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  war  into 
the  enemy's  country.  Tt  is  in  an  inva 
sion  of  this  sort,  that  he  flatters  himself 
with  the  expectation  of  gaining  laurels 
fit  to  adorn  a  Senator's  brow! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will  not, 
I  trust,  be  expected  that  I  should,  either 
now  or  at  any  time,  separate  this  farrago 
into  parts,  and  answer  and  examine  its 
components.  I  shall  barely  bestow  upon 
it  all  a  general  remark  or  two.  In  the 
run  of  forty  years,  Sir,  under  this  Con 
stitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry 
successive  violent  party  contests.  Party 
arose,  indeed,  with  the  Constitution  it 
self,  arid,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  at 
tended  it  through  the  greater  part  of  its 
history.  Whether  any  other  constitu 
tion  than  the  old  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  was  desirable,  was  itself  a  ques 
tion  on  which  parties  divided;  if  a  new 
constitution  were  framed,  what  powers 
should  be  given  to  it  was  another  ques 
tion  ;  and  when  it  had  been  formed,  what 
was,  in  fact,  the  just  extent  of  the  pow 
ers  actually  conferred  was  a  third.  Par 
ties,  as  we  know,  existed  under  the  first 
administration,  as  distinctly  marked  as 
those  which  have  manifested  themselves 
at  any  subsequent  period.  The  con 
test  immediately  preceding  the  political 
change  in  1801,  and  that,  again,  which 
existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  late 
war,  are  other  instances  of  party  excite 
ment,  of  something  more  than  usual 
strength  and  intensity.  In  all  these 
conflicts  there  was,  no  doubt,  much  of 
violence  on  both  and  all  sides.  It  would 
be  impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for  such 
employment,  to  adjust  the  relative  quan 
tum  of  violence  between  these  contend 
ing  parties.  There  was  enough  in  each, 
as  must  always  be  expected  in  popular 
governments.  With  a  great  deal  of  pop 
ular  and  decorous  discussion,  there  was 
mingled  a  great  deal,  also,  of  declama 


tion,  virulence,  crimination,  and  abuse. 
In  regard  to  any  party,  probably,  at  one 
of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history  of 
parties,  enough  may  be  found  to  make 
out  another  inflamed  exhibition,  not  un 
like  that  with  which  the  honorable  mem 
ber  has  edified  us.  For  myself,  Sir,  I 
shall  not  rake  among  the  rubbish  of  by 
gone  times,  to  see  what  I  can  find,  or 
whether  I  cannot  find  something  by 
which  I  can  fix  a  blot  on  the  escutcheon 
of  any  State,  any  party,  or  any  part  of 
the  country.  General  Washington's  ad 
ministration  was  steadily  and  zealously 
maintained,  as  we  all  know,  by  New 
England.  It  was  violently  opposed  else 
where.  We  know  in  what  quarter  he 
had  the  most  earnest,  constant,  and  per 
severing  support,  hi  all  his  great  and 
leading  measures.  We  know  where  his 
private  and  personal  character  was  held 
in  the  highest  degree  of  attachment  and 
veneration ;  and  we  know,  too,  where 
his  measures  were  opposed,  his  services 
slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.  We 
know,  or  we  might  know,  if  we  turned 
to  the  journals,  who  expressed  respect, 
gratitude,  and  regret,  when  he  retired 
from  the  chief  magistracy,  and  who  re 
fused  to  express  either  respect,  grati 
tude,  or  regret.  I  shall  not  open  those 
journals.  Publications  more  abusive  or 
scurrilous  never  saw  the  light,  than  were 
sent  forth  against  Washington,  and  all 
his  leading  measures,  from  presses  south 
of  New  England.  But  I  shall  not  look 
them  up.  I  employ  no  scavengers,  no 
one  is  in  attendance  on  me,  furnishing 
such  means  of  retaliation;  and  if  there 
were,  with  an  ass's  load  of  them,  with  a 
bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gentle 
man  himself  has  produced,  I  would  not 
touch  one  of  them.  I  see  enough  of  the 
violence  of  our  own  times,  to  be  no  way 
anxious  to  rescue  from  forgetfulness  the 
extravagances  of  times  past. 

Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present 
purpose  V  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
public  lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  at 
tack  was  begun;  and  it  has  nothing  to 
do  with  those  sentiments  and  opinions 
which,!  have  thought,  tend  to  disunion, 
and  all  of  which  the  honorable  member 
seems  to  have  adopted  himself,  and  uu- 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


251 


dertaken  to  defend.  New  England  has, 
at  times,  so  argues  the  gentleman,  held 
opinions  as  dangerous  as  those  which  he 
now  holds.  Suppose  this  were  so;  why 
should  he  therefore  abuse  New  England  ? 
If  he  finds  himself  countenanced  by  acts 
of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he  relies  on 
these  acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover, 
their  authors  with  reproach?  But,  Sir, 
if,  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there 
have  been  undue  effervescences  of  party 
in  New  England,  has  the  same  thing 
happened  nowhere  else  ?  Party  animos 
ity  and  party  outrage,  not  in  New  Eng 
land,  but  elsewhere,  denounced  President 
Washington,  not  only  as  a  Federalist, 
but  as  a  Tory,  a  British  agent,  a  man 
who,  in  his  high  office,  sanctioned  cor 
ruption.  But  does  the  honorable  mem 
ber  suppose,  if  I  had  a  tender  here  who 
should  put  such  an  eft'usion  of  wicked 
ness  and  folly  into  my  hand,  that  I  would 
stand  up  and  read  it  against  the  South  V 
Parties  ran  into  great  heats  again  in 
1799  and  1800.  What  was  said,  Sir,  or 
rather  what  was  not  said,  in  those  years, 
against  John  Adams,  one  of  the  com 
mittee  that  drafted  the  Declaration  'of 
Independence,  and  its  admitted  ablest 
defender  on  the  floor  of  Congress  ?  If 
the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase  his 
stores  of  party  abuse  and  frothy  vio 
lence,  if  he  has  a  determined  proclivity 
to  such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of 
that  sort  south  of  the  Potomac,  much  to 
his  taste,  yet  untouched.  I  shall  not 
touch  them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country 
at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war 
were  violent.  But  then  there  was  vio 
lence  on  both  sides,  and  violence  in 
every  State.  Minorities  and  majorities 
were  equally  violent.  There  was  110 
more  violence  against  the  war  in  New 
England ,  than  in  other  States ;  nor  any 
more  appearance  of  violence,  except  that, 
owing  to  a  dense  population,  greater  fa 
cility  of  assembling,  and  more  presses, 
there  may  have  been  more  in  quantity 
spoken  and  printed  there  than  in  some 
other  places.  In  the  article  of  sermons, 
too,  New  England  is  somewhat  more 
abundant  than  South  Carolina;  and  for 
that  reason  the  chance  of  finding  here 


and  there  an  exceptionable  one  may  be 
greater.  I  hope,  too,  there  are  more 
good  ones.  Opposition  may  have  been 
more  formidable  in  New  England,  as  it 
embraced  a  larger  portion  of  the  whole 
population;  but  it  was  no  more  unre 
strained  in  principle,  or  violent  in  man 
ner.  The  minorities  dealt  quite  as 
harshly  with  their  own  State  govern 
ments  as  the  majorities  dealt  with  the 
administration  here.  There  were  presses 
on  both  sides,  popular  meetings  on  both 
sides,  ay,  and  pulpits  on  both  sides  also. 
The  gentleman's  purveyors  have  only 
catered  for  him  among  the  productions 
of  one  side.  I  certainly  shall  not  supply 
the  deficiency  by  furnishing  samples  of 
the  other.  I  leave  to  him,  and  to  them, 
the  whole  concern. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if,  in 
any  part  of  this  their  grateful  occupa 
tion,  if,  in  all  their  researches,  they  find 
any  thing  in  the  history  of  Massachu 
setts,  or  New  England,  or  in  the  pro 
ceedings  of  any  legislative  or  other  public 
body,  disloyal  to  the  Union,  speaking 
slightingly  of  its  value,  proposing  to  break 
it  up,  or  recommending  non-intercourse 
with  neighboring  States,  011  account  of 
difference  of  political  opinion,  then,  Sir, 
I  give  them  all  up  to  the  honorable  gen 
tleman's  unrestrained  rebuke;  expect 
ing,  however,  that  he  will  extend  his 
bufferings  in  like  manner  to  all  similar 
proceeding*,  wlierever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  has  spoken  at 
large  of  former  parties,  now  no  longer 
in  being,  by  their  received  appellations, 
and  has  undertaken  to  instruct  us,  not 
only  in  the  knowledge  of  their  principles, 
but  of  their  respective  pedigrees  also. 
He  has  ascended  to  their  origin,  and  run 
out  their  genealogies.  With  most  ex 
emplary  modesty,  he  speaks  of  the  party 
to  which  he  professes  to  have  himself 
belonged,  as  the  true  Pure,  the  only 
honest,  patriotic  party,  derived  by  regu 
lar  descent,  from  father  to  son,  from  the 
time  of  the  virtuous  Romans !  Spread 
ing  before  us  the  family  tree  of  political 
parties,  he  takes  especial  care  to  show 
himself  snugly  perched  on  a  popular 
bough !  He  is  wakeful  to  the  expediency 
of  adopting  such  rules  of  descent  as  shall 


252 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


bring  him  in,  to  the  exclusion  of  others, 
as  an  heir  to  the  inheritance  of  all  pub 
lic  virtue,  and  all  true  political  principle. 
His  party  and  his  opinions  are  sure  to  be 
orthodox;  heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his 
opponents.  He  spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Fed 
eralists,  and  I  thought  I  saw  some  eyes 
l>egin  to  open  and  stare  a  little,  when  he 
ventured  on  that  ground.  I  expected  he 
would  draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly, 
when  he  looked  on  the  circle  round 
him,  and  especially  if  he  should  cast  his 
thoughts  to  the  high  places'  out  of  the 
Senate.  Nevertheless,  he  went  back  to 
Home,  ad  annum  urbis  conditce,  and 
found  the  fathers  of  the  Federalists  in 
the  primeval  aristocrats  of  that  re 
nowned  city!  He  traced  the  flow  of 
Federal  blood  down  through  successive 
ages  and  centuries,  till  he  brought  it 
into  the  veins  of  the  American  Tories, 
of  whom,  by  the  way,  there  were  twenty 
in  the  Carolinas  for  one  in  Massachu 
setts.  From  the  Tories  he  followed  it 
to  the  Federalists ;  and,  as  the  Federal 
party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was  no 
possibility  of  transmitting  it  further  on 
this  side  the  Atlantic,  he  seems  to  have 
discovered  that  it  has  gone  off  collater 
ally,  though  against  all  the  canons  of 
descent,  into  the  Ultras  of  France,  and 
finally  become  extinguished,  like  ex 
ploded  gas,  among  the  adherents  of 
Don  Miguel!  This,  Sir,  is  an  abstract 
of  the  gentleman's  history  of,  Federal 
ism.  I  am  not  about  to  controvert  it. 
It  is  not,  at  present,  worth  the  pains  of 
refutation;  because,  Sir,  if  at  this  day 
any  one  feels  the  sin  of  Federalism  lying 
heavily  on  his  conscience,  he  can  easily 
procure  remission.  He  may  even  obtain 
an  indulgence,  if  he  be  desirous  of  re 
peating  the  same  transgression.  It  is  an 
affair  of  no  difficulty  to  get  into  this 
same  right  line  of  patriotic  descent.  A 
man  now-a-days  is  at  liberty  to  choose 
his  political  parentage.  He  may  elect 
his  own  father.  Federalist  or  not,  he 
may,  if  he  choose,  claim  to  belong  to 
the  favored  stock,  and  his  claim  will  be 
allowed.  He  may  carry  back  his  pre 
tensions  just  as  far  as  the  honorable 
gentleman  himself;  nay,  he  may  make 
himself  out  the  honorable  gentleman's 


cousin,  and  prove,  satisfactorily,  that  he 
is  descended  from  the  same  political 
great-grandfather.  All  this  is  allow 
able.  We  all  know  a  process,  Sir,  by 
which  tne  whole  Essex  Junto  could,  in 
one  hour,  be  all  washed  white  from  their 
ancient  Federalism,  and  come  out,  every 
one  of  them,  original  Democrats,  dyed 
in  the  wool !  Some  of  them  have  actually 
undergone  the  operation,  and  they  say  it 
is  quite  easy.  The  only  inconvenience 
it  occasions,  as  they  tell  us,  is  a  slight 
tendency  of  the  blood  to  the  face,  a  soft 
suffusion,  which,  however,  is  very  tran 
sient,  since  nothing  is  said  by  those  whom 
they  join  calculated  to  deepen  the  red  on 
the  cheek,  but  a  prudent  silence  is  ob 
served  in  regard  to  all  the  past.  Indeed, 
Sir,  some  smiles  of  approbation  have 
been  bestowed,  and  some  crumbs  of 
comfort  have  fallen,  not  a  thousand 
miles  from  the  door  of  the  Hartford 
Convention  itself.  And  if  the  author 
of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  possessed  the 
other  requisite  qualifications,  there  is 
no  knowing,  notwithstanding  his  Feder 
alism,  to  what  heights  of  favor  he  might 
not  yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare, 
such  as  it  is,  into  New  England,  the 
honorable  gentleman  all  along  professes 
to  be  acting  on  the  defensive.  He 
chooses  to  consider  me  as  having  as 
sailed  South  Carolina,  and  insists  that 
he  comes  forth  only  as  her  champion, 
and  in  her  defence.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit 
that  I  made  any  attack  whatever  on 
South  Carolina.  Nothing  like  it.  The 
honorable  member,  in  his  first  speech, 
expressed  opinions,  in  regard  to  revenue 
and  some  other  topics,  which  I  heard 
both  with  pain  and  with  surprise.  I 
told  the  gentleman  I  was  aware  that 
such  sentiments  were  entertained  out  of 
the  government,  but  had  not  expected 
to  find  them  advanced  in  it;  that  I  knew 
there  were  persons  in  the  South  who 
speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference  or 
doubt,  taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils, 
and  to  say  nothing  of  its  benefits;  that 
the  honorable  member  himself,  I  was 
sure,  could  never  be  one  of  these;  and  I 
regretted  the  expression  of  such  opinions 
as  he  had  avowed,  because  I  thought 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


253 


their  obvious  tendency  was  to  encourage 
feelings  of  disrespect  to  the  Union,  and 
to  impair  its  strength.  This,  Sir,  is  the 
sum  and  substance  of  all  I  said  on  the 
subject.  And  this  constitutes  the  attack 
which  called  on  the  chivalry  of  the  gen 
tleman,  in  his  own  opinion,  to  harry  us 
with  such  a  foray  among  the  party  pam 
phlets  and  party  proceedings  of  Massa 
chusetts  !  If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with 
dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of  the  ebul 
litions  of  individuals  in  South  Carolina, 
it  is  true.  But  if  he  means  that  I  as 
sailed  the  character  of  the  State,  her 
honor,  or  patriotism,  that  I  reflected  on 
her  history  or  her  conduct,  he  has  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  any  such  as 
sumption.  I  did  not  even  refer,  I  think, 
in  my  observations,  to  any  collection  of 
individuals.  I  said  nothing  of  the  re 
cent  conventions.  I  spoke  in  the  most 
guarded  and  careful  manner,  and  only 
expressed  my  regret  for  the  publication 
of  opinions,  which  I  presumed  the  hon 
orable  member  disapproved  as  much  as 
myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was  mis 
taken.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  gen 
tleman  has  disclaimed  any  sentiment,  or 
any  opinion,  of  a  supposed  anti-union 
tendency,  which  on  all  or  any  of  the 
recent  occasions  has  been  expressed. 
The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been 
rather  to  prove,  that,  in  divers  times 
and  manners,  sentiments  equally  liable 
to  my  objection  have  been  avowed  in 
New  England.  And  one  would  suppose 
that  his  object,  in  this  reference  to  Mas 
sachusetts,  was  to  find  a  precedent  to 
justify  proceedings  in  the  South,  were  it 
not  for  the  reproach  and  contumely  with 
which  he  labors,  all  along,  to  load  these 
his  own  chosen  precedents.  By  way  of 
defending  South  Carolina  from  what  he 
chooses  to  think  an  attack  on  her,  he 
first  quotes  the  example  of  Massachu 
setts,  and  then  denounces  that  example 
in  good  set  terms.  This  twofold  pur 
pose,  not  very  consistent,  one  would 
think,  with  itself,  was  exhibited  more 
than  once  in  the  course  of  his  speech. 
He  referred,  for  instance,  to  the  Hart 
ford  Convention.  Did  he  do  this  for 
authority,  or  for  a  topic  of  reproach? 
Apparently  for  both,  for  he  told  us  that 


he  should  find  no  fault  with  the  mere 
fact  of  holding  such  a  convention,  and 
considering  and  discussing  such  ques 
tions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and  there 
discussed ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnox 
ious  was  its  being  held  at  the  time,  and 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  country 
then  existing.  We  were  in  a  war,  he 
said,  and  the  country  needed  all  our  aid ; 
the  hand  of  government  required  to  be 
strengthened,  not  weakened;  and  pa 
triotism  should  have  postponed  such 
proceedings  to  another  day.  The  thing 
itself,  then,  is  a  precedent;  the  time  and 
manner  of  it  only,  a  subject  of  censure. 
Now,  Sir,  I  go  much  further,  on  this 
point,  than  the  honorable  member. 
Supposing,  as  the  gentleman  seems  to 
do,  that  the  Hartford  Convention  assem 
bled  for  any  such  purpose  as  breaking 
up  the  Union,  because  they  thought  un 
constitutional  laws  had  been  passed,  or 
to  consult  on  that  subject,  or  to  calculate 
the  value  of  the  Union;  supposing  this 
to  be  their  purpose,  or  any  part  of  it, 
then  I  say  the  meeting  itself  was  dis 
loyal,  and  was  obnoxious  to  censure, 
whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or  time 
of  war,  or  under  whatever  circum 
stances.  The  material  question  is  the 
object.  Is  dissolution  the  object?  If  it 
be,  external  circumstances  may  make  it 
a  more  or  less  aggravated  case,  but 
cannot  affect  the  principle.  I  do  not 
hold,  therefore,  Sir,  that  the  Hartford 
Convention  was  pardonable,  even  to  the 
extent  of  the  gentleman's  admission,  if 
its  objects  were  really  such  as  have 
been  imputed  to  it.  Sir,  there  never 
was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of  excite 
ment,  in  which  the  Hartford  Conven 
tion,  or  any  other  convention,  could 
have  maintained  itself  one  moment  in 
New  England,  if  assembled  for  any 
such  purpose  as  the  gentleman  says 
would  have  been  an  allowable  purpose. 
To  hold  conventions  to  decide  constitu 
tional  law!  To  try  the  binding  validity 
of  statutes  by  votes  in  a  convention! 
Sir,  the  Hartford  Convention,  I  pre 
sume,  would  not  desire  that  the  honor 
able  gentleman  should  be  their  defender 
or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their  case  upon 
such  untenable  and  extravagant  grounds. 


254 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


Then,  Sir,  the  gentleman  has  no 
fault  to  find  with  these  recently  promul 
gated  South  Carolina  opinions.  And 
certainly  he  need  have  none;  for  his 
own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced,  and 
advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  comprehend  them,  go  the 
full  length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  pro 
pose,  Sir,  to  say  something  on  these, 
and  to  consider  how  far  they  are  just 
and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that, 
however,  let  me  observe  that  the  eulo- 
gium  pronounced  by  the  honorable 
gentleman  on  the  character  of  the  State 
of  South  Carolina,  for  her  Revolu 
tionary  and  other  merits,  meets  my 
hearty  concurrence.  I  shall  not  ac 
knowledge  that  the  honorable  member 
goes  before  me  in  regard  for  whatever 
of  distinguished  talent,  or  distinguished 
character.  South  Carolina  has  produced. 
I  claim  part  of  the  honor,  I  partake  in 
the  pride,  of  her  great  names.  I  claim 
them  for  countrymen,  one  and  all,  the 
Laurenses,  the  Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys, 
the  Sumpters,  the  Marions,  Americans 
all,  whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be 
hemmed  in  by  State  lines,  than  their 
talents  and  patriotism  were  capable  of 
being  circumscribed  within  the  same 
narrow  limits.  In  their  day  and  gen 
eration,  they  served  and  honored  the 
country,  and  the  whole  country:  and 
their  renown  is  of  the  treasures  of  the 
whole  country.  Him  whose  honored 
name  the  gentleman  himself  bears,  — 
does  he  esteem  me  less  capable  of  grati 
tude  for  his  patriotism,  or  sympathy  for 
his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had  first 
opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachusetts, 
instead  of  South  Carolina?  Sir,  does 
he  suppose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a 
Carolina  name  so  bright  as  to  produce 
envy  in  my  bosom?  No,  Sir,  increased 
gratification  and  delight,  rather.  I 
thank  God,  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with 
little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise 
mortals  to  the  skies,  I  have  yet  none,  as 
I  trust,  of  that  other  spirit,  which  would 
drag  angels  down.  When  I  shall  be 
found,  Sir,  in  my  place  here  in  the  Senate, 
or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at  public  merit, 
because  it  happens  to  spring  up  beyond 
the  little  limits  of  my  own  State  or 


neighborhood;  when  I  refuse,  for  any 
such  cause  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage 
due  to  American  talent,  to  elevated  patri 
otism,  to  sincere  devotion  to  liberty  and 
the  coifntry;  or,  if  I  see  an  uncommon 
endowment  of  Heaven,  if  I  see  extraor 
dinary  capacity  and  virtue,  in  any  son  of 
the  South,  and  if,  moved  by  local  preju 
dice  or  gangrened  by  State  jealousy, 
I  get  up- here  to  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair 
from  his  just  character  and  just  fame, 
may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
my  mouth ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollec 
tions;  let  me  indulge  in  refreshing  re 
membrance  of  the  past;  let  me  remind 
you  that,  in  early  times,  no  States  cher 
ished  greater  harmony,  both  of  prin 
ciple  and  feeling,  than  Massachusetts 
and  South  Carolina.  Would  to  God 
that  harmony  might  again  return ! 
Shoulder  to  shoulder  they  went  through 
the  Revolution,  hand  in  hand  they 
stood  round  the  administration  of 
Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great 
arm  lean  on  them  for  support.  Un 
kind  feeling,  if  it  exist,  alienation,  and 
distrust  are  the  growth,  unnatural  to 
such  soils,  of  false  principles  since 
sown.  They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of 
which  that  same  great  arm  never 
scattered. 

P  Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  en- 
Icomium  upon  Massachusetts ;  she  needs 
I  none.  There  she  is.  Behold  her,  and 
jjudge  for  yourselves.  There  is  her  his 
tory;  the  world  knows  it  by  heart.  The 
past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is  Bos 
ton,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  and 
Bunker  Hill;  and  there  they  will  re 
main  for  ever.  The  bones  of  her  sons, 
falling  in  the  great  struggle  for  Inde 
pendence,  now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil 
of  every  State  from  New  England  to 
Georgia;  and  there  they  will  lie  for  ever. 
And,  Sir,  where  American  Liberty  raised 
its  first  voice,  and  where  its  youth  was 
nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it  still 
lives,  in  the  strength  of  its  manhood  and 
full  of  its  original  spirit.  If  discord  and 
disunion  shall  wound  it,  if  party  strife 
and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk  at  and 
tear  it,  if  folly  and  madness,  if  uneasi 
ness  under  salutary  and  necessary  re- 


THE    REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


255 


straint,  shall  succeed  in  separating  it 
from  that  Union,  by  which  alone  its 
existence  is  made  sure,  it  will  stand,  in 
the  end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle  in 
which  its  infancy  was  rocked;  it  will 
stretch  forth  its  arm  with  whatever  of 
vigor  it  may  still  retain  over  the  friends 
who  gather  round  it;  and  it  will  fall  at 
last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proudest 
monuments  of  its  own  glory,  and  on  the 
very  spot  of  its  origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed, 
Mr.  President,  by  far  the  most  grave 
and  important  duty,  which  I  feel  to  be 
devolved  on  me  by  this  occasion.  It  is 
to  states  and  to  defend,  what  I  conceive 
to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitu 
tion  under  which  we  are  here  assembled. 
I  might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty 
a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  and 
abler  hands.  I  could  have  wished  that 
it  should  have  been  executed  by  those 
whose  character  and  experience  give 
weight  and  influence  to  their  opinions, 
such  as  cannot  possibly  belong  to  mine. 
But,  Sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not 
sought  it;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state 
my  own  sentiments,  without  challenging 
for  them  any  particular  regard,  with 
studied  plainness,  and  as  much  precision 
as  possible. 

v,!  understand  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  to  maintain,  that 
it  is  a  right  of  the  State  legislatures  to 
interfere,  whenever,  in  their  judgment, 
this  government  transcends  its  constitu 
tional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  its  laws. 

____X~understand  him  to  maintain  this 
right,  as  a  right  existing  under  the  Con 
stitution,  not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it 
on  the  ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such 
as  would  justify  violent  revolution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  au 
thority,  on  the  part  of  the  States,  thus 
to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of  correct 
ing  the  exercise  of  power  by  the  general 
government,  of  checking  it,  and  of  com 
pelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of 
the  extent  of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that 
the  ultimate  power  of  judging  of  the 
constitutional  extent  of  its  own  author 


ity  is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  gen 
eral  government,  or  any  branch  of  it; 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  (the  States 
may  lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and 
each  State  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given 
case,  the  act  of  the  general  government 
transcends  its  power.  J 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that,  if  the 
exigency  of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of 
any  State  government,  require  it,  such 
State  government  may,  by  its  own  sov 
ereign  authority,  annul  an  act  of  the 
general  government  which  it  deems 
plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  \vhat  I  understand 
from  him  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doc 
trine,  and  the  doctrine  which  he  main 
tains.  I  propose  to  consider  it,  and 
compare  it  with  the  Constitution.  Al 
low  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark, 
that  I  call  this  the  South  Carolina  doc 
trine  only  because  the  gentleman  him 
self  has  so  denominated  it.  I  do  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  say  that  South  Caro 
lina,  as  a  State,  has  ever  advanced  these 
sentiments.  I  hope  she  has  not,  and 
never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of 
her  people  are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws, 
is  doubtless  true.  That  a  majority, 
somewhat  less  than  that  just  mentioned, 
conscientiously  believe  these  laws  un 
constitutional,  may  probably  also  be 
true.  But  that  any  majority  holds  to 
the  right  of  direct  State  interference  at 
State  discretion,  the  right  of  nullifying 
acts  of  Congress  by  acts  of  State  legisla 
tion,  is  more  than  I  know,  and  what  I 
shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the 
honorable  gentleman  who  do  maintain 
these  opinions,  is  quite  certain.  I  recol 
lect  the  recent  expression  of  a  sentiment, 
which  circumstances  attending  its  utter 
ance  and  publication  justify  us  in  sup 
posing  was  not  unpremeditated.  "  The 
sovereignty  of  the  State, — never  to  be 
controlled,  construed,  or  decided  on,  but 
by  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  jus 
tice." 

Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said,  that,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  clearly  understood,  he 
would  state  that  his  proposition  was  in  the 
words  of  the  Virginia  resolution,  as  fol 
lows  :  — 


256 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAY^7E. 


"  That  tliis  assembly  doth  explicitly  and 
peremptorily  declare,  that  it  views  the  pow 
ers  of  the  federal  government  as  resulting 
from  the  compact  to  which  the  States  are 
parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense  and 
intention  of  the  instrument  constituting 
that  compact,  as  no  farther  valid  than  they 
are  authorized  by  the  grants  enumerated  in 
that  compact ;  and  that,  in  case  of  a  delib 
erate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of 
other  powers  not  granted  by  the  said  com 
pact,  the  States  who  are  parties  thereto 
have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to 
interpose,  for  arresting  the  progress  of  the 
evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  re 
spective  limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and 
liberties  appertaining  to  them." 

Mr.  Webster  resumed  :  — 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of 
the  existence  of  the  resolution  which  the 
gentleman  read,  and  has  now  repeated, 
and  that  he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority. 
I  know  the  source,  too,  from  which  it  is 
understood  to  have  proceeded.  I  need 
not  say  that  I  have  much  respect  for  the 
constitutional  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison ; 
they  would  weigh  greatly  with  me  al 
ways.  But  before  the  authority  of  his 
opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's 
proposition,  it  will  be  proper  to  consider 
what  is  the  fair  interpretation  of  that 
resolution,  to  which  Mr.  Madison  is  un 
derstood  to  have  given  his  sanction.  As 
the  gentleman  construes  it,  it  is  an  au 
thority  for  him.  Possibly  he  may  not 
have  adopted  the  right  construction. 
That  resolution  declares,  that,  in  the 
case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  qf  powers 
not  granted  by  the  general  government,  the 
States  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress 
of  the  evil.  But  how  interpose,  and 
what  does  this  declaration  purport? 
Does  it  mean  no  more  than  that  there 
may  be  extreme  cases,  in  which  the  peo 
ple,  in  any  mode  of  assembling,  may 
resist  usurpation,  and  relieve  themselves 
from  a  tyrannical  government?  No  one 
will  deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not 
only  acknowledged  to  be  just  in  Amer 
ica,  but  in  England  also  Blackstone 
admits  as  much,  in  the  theory,  and 
practice,  too,  of  the  English  constitu 
tion.  We,  Sir,  who  oppose  the  Carolina 
doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  people 
may,  if  they  choose,  throw  off  any  gov 


ernment  when  it  becomes  oppressive  and 
intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  in  its 
stead.  We  all  know  that  civil  institu 
tions  are  established  for  the  public  bene 
fit,  and*that  when  they  cease  to  answer 
the  ends  of  their  existence  they  may  be 
changed.  But  I  do  not  understand  the 
doctrine  now  contended  for  to  be  that, 
which,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  we 
may  call  the  right  of  revolution.  I  un 
derstand  the  gentleman  to  maintain, 
that,  without  revolution,  without  civil 
commotion,  without  rebellion,  a  remedy 
for  supposed  abuse  and  transgression  of 
the  powers  of  the  general  government 
lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to  the  interference 
of  the  State  governments. 

Mr  Hayne  here  rose  and  said :  He  did 
not  contend  for  the  mere  right  of  revo 
lution,  but  for  the  right  of  constitutional 
resistance.  What  he  maintained  was,  that 
in  case  of  a  plain,  palpable  violation  of  the 
Constitution  by  the  general  government,  a 
State  may  interpose ;  and  that  this  inter 
position  is  constitutional. 

Mr.  Webster  resumed :  — 

F  So,  Sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman, 
and  am  happy  to  find  that  I  did  not  mis- 
junderstand  him.  What  he  contends  for 
is,  that  it  is  constitutional  to  interrupt 
the  administration  of  the  Constitution 
itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
chosen  and  sworn  to  administer  it,'  by 
the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law, 
of  the  States,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign 
capacity.  The  inherent  right  in  the  peo 
ple  to  reform  their  government  I  do  not 
deny;  and  they  have  another  right,  and 
that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws, 
without  overturning  the  government.  It 
is  no  doctrine  of  mine  that  unconstitu 
tional  laws  bind  the  people.  The  great 
question  is,  Whose  prerogative  is  it  to 
decide  on  the  constitutionality  or  uncon- 
stitutionality  of  the  laws?  On  that,  the 
main  debate  hinges.  The  proposition, 
that,  in  case  of  a  supposed  violation  of 
the  Constitution  by  Congress,  the  States 
have  a  constitutional  right  to  interfere 
and  annul  the  law  of  Congress,  is  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman.  I  do  not 
admit  it.  If  the  gentleman  had  in 
tended  no  more  than  to  assert  the  right 
of  revolution  for  justifiable  cause,  he 


THE  REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


257 


would  have  said  only  what  all  agree  to. 
But  I  cannot  conceive  that  there  can  be 
a  middle  course,  between  submission  to 
the  laws,  when  regularly  pronoimced 
constitutional,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
open  resistance,  which  is  revolution  or 
rebellion,  on  the  other.  I  say,  the  right 
of  a  State  to  annul  a  law  of  Congress 
cannot  be  maintained,  but  on  the  ground 
of  the  inalienable  right  of  man  to  resist 
oppression;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the 
ground  of  revolution.  I  admit  that 
there  is  an  ultimate  violent  remedy, 
above  the  Constitution  and  in  defiance 
of  the  Constitution,  which  may  be  re 
sorted  to  when  a  revolution  is  to  be  jus 
tified.  But  I  do  not  admit,  that,  under 
the  Constitution  and  in  conformity  with 
it,  there  is  any  mode  in  which  a  State 
government,  as  a  member  of  the  Union, 
can  interfere  and  stop  the  progress  of 
the  general  government,  by  force  of  her 
own  laws,  under  any  circumstances  what 
ever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin 
of  this  government  and  the  source  of  its 
power.  Whose  agent  is  it?  Is  it  the 
creature  of  the  State  legislatures,  or  the 
creature  of  the  people  ?  If  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  be  the  agent 
of  the  State  governments,  then  they  may 
control  it,  provided  they  can  agree  in  the 
manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be  the  agent 
of  the  people,  then  the  people  alone  can 
control  it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  reform 
it.  It  is  observable  enough,  that  the 
doctrine  for  which  the  honorable  gentle 
man  contends  leads  him  to  the  necessity 
of  maintaining,  not  only  that  this  gen 
eral  government  is  the  creature  of  the 
States,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each 
of  the  States  severally,  so  that  each  may 
assert  the  power  for  itself  of  determin 
ing  whether  it  acts  within  the  limits  of 
its  authority.  It  is  the  servant  of  four- 
and-twenty  masters,  of  different  wills 
and  different  purposes,  and  yet  bound  to 
obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it  seems 
no  less)  arises  from  a  misconception  as 
to  the  origin  of  this  government  and  its 
true  character.  It  is,  Sir,  the  people's 
Constitution,  the  people's  government, 
made  for  the  people,  made  by  the  people, 
and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  peo- 

17 


pie  of  the  United  States  have  declared 
that  this  Constitution  shall  be  the  su 
preme  law.  We  must  either  admit  the 
proposition,  or  dispute  their  authority. 
The  States  are,  unquestionably,  sover 
eign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not 
affected  by  this  supreme  law.  But  the 
State  legislatures,  as  political  bodies, 
however  sovereign,  are  yet  not  sovereign 
over  the  people.  So  far  as  the  people 
have  given  power  to  the  general  govern 
ment,  so  far  the  grant  is  unquestionably 
good,  and  the  government  holds  of  the 
people,  and  not  of  the  State  governments. 
We  are  all  agents  of  the  same  supreme 
power,  the  people.  The  general  gov 
ernment  and  the  State  governments 
derive  their  authority  from  the  same 
source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the 
other,  be  called  primary,  though  one  is 
definite  and  restricted,  and  the  other 
general  and  residuary.  The  national 
government  possesses  those  powers  which 
it  can  be  shown  the  people  have  con 
ferred  on  it,  and  no  more.  All  the  rest 
belongs  to  the  State  governments,  or  to 
the  people  themselves.  So  far  as  the 
people  have  restrained  State  sovereignty, 
by  the  expression  of  their  will,  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so 
far,  it  must  be  admitted,  State  sover 
eignty  is  effectually  controlled.  I  do 
not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be, 
controlled  farther.  The  sentiment  to 
which  I  have  referred  propounds  that 
State  sovereignty  is  only  to  be  con 
trolled  by  its  own  "  feeling  of  justice  " ; 
that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled 
at  all,  for  one  who  is  to  follow  his  own 
feelings  is  under  no  legal  control.  Now, 
however  men  may  think  this  ought  to 
be,  the  fact  is,  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  chosen  to  impose 
control  on  State  sovereignties.  There 
are  those,  doubtless,  who  wish  they  had 
been  left  without  restraint ;  but  the  Con 
stitution  has  ordered  the  matter  differ 
ently.  To  make  war,  for  instance,  is 
an  exercise  of  sovereignty;  but  the  Con 
stitution  declares  that  no  State  shall 
make  war.  To  coin  money  is  another 
exercise  of  sovereign  power;  but  no 
State  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  Again, 
the  Constitution  says  that  no  sovereign 


258 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


State  shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to  make 
a  treaty.  These  prohibitions,  it  must 
be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  State 
sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  as  well 
as  of  the  other  States,  which  does  not 
arise  "from  her  own  feelings  of  honor 
able  justice."  The  opinion  referred  to, 
therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the  plainest 
provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public 
bodies  which  have  already  been  alluded 
to,  and  to  which  I  refer  again  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  more  fully  what 
is  the  length  and  breadth  of  that  doc 
trine,  denominated  the  Carolina  doc 
trine,  which  the  honorable  member  has 
now  stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain. 
In  one  of  them  I  find  it  resolved,  that 
"the  tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other 
tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch 
of  industry  at  the  expense  of  others,  is 
contrary  to  the  meaning  and  intention  of 
the  federal  compact ;  and  such  a  danger 
ous,  palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation 
of  power,  by  a  determined  majority, 
wielding  the  general  government  beyond 
the  limits  of  its  delegated  powers,  as 
calls  upon  the  States  which  compose  the 
suffering  minority,  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  to  exercise  the  powers  which, 
as  sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve,  upon 
them,  when  their  compact  is  violated. " 

Observe,  Sir,  that  this  resolution 
holds  the  tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other 
tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of 
industry  at  the  expense  of  another,  to 
be.  such  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and  de 
liberate  usurpation  of  power,  as  calls 
upon  the  States,  in  their  sovereign  ca 
pacity,  to  interfere  by  their  own  author 
ity.  This  denunciation,  Mr.  President, 
you  will  please  to  observe,  includes  our 
old  tariff  of  1810,  as  well  as  all  others; 
because  that  was  established  to  promote 
the  interest  of  the  manufacturers  of  cot 
ton,  to  the  manifest  and  admitted  injury 
of  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade.  Observe, 
again,  that  all  the  qualifications  are  here 
rehearsed  and  charged  upon  the  tariff, 
which  are  necessary  to  bring  the  case 
within  the  gentleman's  proposition. 
The  tariff  is  a  usurpation ;  it  is  a  dan 
gerous  usurpation ;  it  is  a  palpable  usur 
pation;  it  is  a  deliberate  usurpation. 


It  is  such  a  usurpation,  therefore,  as  calls 
upon  the  States  to  exercise  their  right 
of  interference.  Here  is  a  case,  then, 
within  the  gentleman's  principles,  and 
all  his*  qualifications  of  his  principles. 
It  is  a  case  for  action.  The  Constitution 
is  plainly,  dangerously,  palpably,  and 
deliberately  violated;  and  the  States 
must  interpose  their  own  authority  to 
arrest  the  law.  Let  us  suppose  the 
State  of  South  Carolina  to  express  this 
same  opinion,  by  the  voice  of  her  legis 
lature.  That  would  be  very  imposing; 
but  what  then?  Is  the  voice  of  one 
State  conclusive?  It  so  happens  that, 
at  the  very  moment  when  South  Caro 
lina  resolves  that  the  tariff  laws  are  un 
constitutional,  Pennsylvania  and  Ken 
tucky  resolve  exactly  the  reverse.  They 
hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly  proper 
and  strictly  constitutional.  And  now, 
Sir,  how  does  the  honorable  member 
propose  to  deal  with  this  case  ?  How 
does  he  relieve  us  from  this  difficulty, 
upon  any  principle  of  his?  His  con 
struction  gets  us  into  it;  how  does  he 
propose  to  get  us  out  ? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable, 
deliberate  usurpation;  Carolina,  there 
fore,  may  nullify  it,  and  refuse  to  pay 
the  duties.  In  Pennsylvania,  it  is  both 
clearly  constitutional  and  highly  expe 
dient;  and  there  the  duties  are  to  be 
f>aid.  And  yet  we  live  under  a  gov 
ernment  of  uniform  laws,  and  under 
a  Constitution  too,  which  contains  an 
express  provision,  as  it  happens,  that  all 
duties  shall  be  equal  in  all  the  States. 
Does  not  this  approach  absurdity? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such 
questions,  independent  of  either  of  the 
States,  is  not  the  whole  Union  a  rope  of 
sand?  Are  we  not  thrown  back  again, 
precisely,  upon  the  old  Confederation  ? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four- 
and-twenty  interpreters  of  constitutional 
law,  each  with  a  power  to  decide  for 
itself,  and  none  with  authority  to  bind 
anybody  else,  and  this  constitutional 
law  the  only  bond  of  their  union! 
What  is  such  a  state  of  things  but  a 
mere  connection  during  pleasure,  or,  to 
use  the  phraseology  of  the  times,  dur 
ing  feeling?  And  that  feeling,  too,  not 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


259 


the  feeling  of  the  people,  who  estab 
lished  the  Constitution,  but  the  feeling 
of  the  State  governments. 
'  In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  ad 
dresses,  having  premised  that  the  crisis 
requires  "  all  the  concentrated  energy  of 
passion,"  an  attitude  of  open  resistance 
to  the  laws  of  the  Union  is  advised. 
Open  resistance  to  the  laws,  then,  is  the 
constitutional  remedy,  the  conservative 
power  of  the  State,  which  the  South 
Carolina  doctrines  teach  for  the  redress 
of  political  evils,  real  or  imaginary. 
And  its  authors  further  say,  that,  ap 
pealing  with  confidence  to  the  Consti 
tution  itself,  to  justify  their  opinions, 
they  cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy 
by  the  courts  of  justice.  In  one  sense, 
indeed,  Sir,  this  is  assuming  an  atti 
tude  of  open  resistance  in  favor  of  lib 
erty.  But  what  sort  of  liberty?  The 
liberty  of  establishing  their  own  opin 
ions,  in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all 
others;  the  liberty  of  judging  and  of 
deciding  exclusively  themselves,  in  a 
matter  in  which  others  have  as  much 
right  to  judge  and  decide  as  they;  the 
liberty  of  placing  their  own  opinions 
above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above 
the  laws,  and  above  the  Constitution. 
This  is  their  liberty,  and  this  is  the  fail- 
result  of  the  proposition  contended  for 
by  the  honorable  gentleman.  Or,  it 
may  be  more  properly  said,  it  is  identi 
cal  with  it,  rather  than  a  result  from  it. 

In  the  same  publication  we  find  the 
following:  "Previously  to  our  Revolu 
tion,  when  the  arm  of  oppression  was 
stretched  over  New  England,  where  did 
our  Northern  brethren  meet  with  a  braver 
sympathy  than  that  which  sprung  from 
the  bosoms  of  Carolinians?  We  had  no 
extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision 
with  the  king's  ministers,  no  naviga 
tion  interests  springing  up,  in  envious 
rivalry  of  England." 

This  seems  extraordinary  language. 
South  Carolina  no  collision  with  the 
king's  ministers  in  1775!  No  extor 
tion!  No  oppression!  But,  Sir,  it  is 
also  most  significant  language.  Does 
any  man  doubt  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  penned?  Can  any  one  fail  to  see 
that  it  was  designed  to  raise  in  the  read 


er's  mind  the  question,  whether,  at  this 
time, — that  is  to  say,  in  1828,  —  South 
Carolina  has  any  collision  with  the  king's 
ministers,  any  oppression,  or  extortion, 
to  fear  from  England?  whether,  in 
short,  England  is  not  as  naturally  the 
friend  of  South  Carolina  as  New  Eng 
land,  with  her  navigation  interests 
springing  up  in  envious  rivalry  of  Eng 
land? 

Is  it  not  strange,  Sir,  that  an  intelli 
gent  man  in  South  Carolina,  in  1828, 
should  thus  labor  to  prove  that,  in  1775, 
there  was  no  hostility,  no  cause  of  war, 
between  South  Carolina  and  England? 
That  she  had  no  occasion,  in  reference 
to  her  own  interest,  or  from  a  regard  to 
her  own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the 
Revolutionary  contest?  Can  any  one 
account  for  the  expression  of  such  strange 
sentiments,  and  their  circulation  through 
the  State,  otherwise  than  by  supposing 
the  object  to  be  what  I  have  already  in 
timated,  to  raise  the  question,  if  they 
had  no  "  collision  "  (mark  the  expres 
sion)  with  the  ministers  of  King  George 
the  Third,  in  1775,  what  collision  have 
they,  in  1828,  with  the  ministers  of  King 
George  the  Fourth?  What  is  there  now, 
in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to  sepa 
rate  Carolina  from  Old,  more,  or  rather, 
than  from  New  England? 

Resolutions,  Sir,  have  been  recently 
passed  by  the  legislature  of  South  Car 
olina.  I  need  not  refer  to  them;  they 
go  no  farther  than  the  honorable  gentle 
man  himself  has  gone,  and  I  hope  not 
so  far.  I  content  myself,  therefore, 
with  debating  the  matter  with  him. 

And  now,  Sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say 
on  this  subject  is,  that  at  no  time,  and 
under  no  circumstances,  has  New  Eng 
land,  or  any  State  in  New  England,  or 
any  respectable  body  of  persons  in  New 
England,  or  any  public  man  of  stand 
ing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  Carolina  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he 
can  find  none,  to  support  his  own  opin 
ions  by  New  England  authority.  New 
England  has  studied  the  Constitution  in 
other  schools,  and  under  other  teachers. 
She  looks  upon  it  with  other  regards, 
and  deems  more  highly  and  reverently 


260 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


both  of  its  just  authority  and  its  utility 
and  excellence.  The  history  of  her  legis 
lative  proceedings  may  be  traced.  The 
ephemeral  effusions  of  temporary  bodies, 
called  together  by  the  excitement  of  the 
occasion,  may  be  hunted  up;  they  have 
been  hunted  up.  The  opinions  and 
votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  may  be  explored.  It  will  all 
be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doctrine  can 
derive  from  her  neither  countenance  nor 
support.  She  rejects  it  now ;  she  always 
did  reject  it ;  and  till  she  loses  her  senses, 
she  always  will  reject  it.  The  honor 
able  member  has  referred  to  expressions 
on  the  subject  of  the  embargo  law,  made 
in  this  place,  by  an  honorable  and  ven 
erable  gentleman,1  now  favoring  us  with 
his  presence.  He  quotes  that  distin 
guished  Senator  as  saying,  that,  in  his 
judgment,  the  embargo  law  was  unconsti 
tutional,  and  that  therefore,  in  his  opin 
ion,  the  people  were  not  bound  to  obey 
it.  That,  Sir,  is  perfectly  constitutional 
language.  An  unconstitutional  law  is 
not  binding ;  but  then  it  does  not  rest  with 
a  resolution  or  a  law  of  a  State  legislature 
to  decide  whether  an  act  of  Congress  be  or 
be  not  constitutional.  An  unconstitu 
tional  act  of  Congress  would  not  bind 
the  people  of  this  District,  although  they 
have  no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their 
behalf;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  con 
stitutional  law  of  Congress  does  bind 
the  citizens  of  every  State,  although  all 
their  legislatures  should  undertake  to 
annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The  ven 
erable  Connecticut  Senator  is  a  consti 
tutional  lawyer,  of  sound  principles  and 
enlarged  knowledge;  a  statesman  prac 
tised  and  experienced,  bred  in  the  com 
pany  of  Washington,  and  holding  just 
views  upon  the  nature  of  our  govern 
ments.  He  believed  the  embargo  un 
constitutional,  and  so  did  others;  but 
what  then?  Who  did  he  suppose  was 
to  decide  that  question?  The  State  leg 
islatures?  Certainly  not.  No  such  sen 
timent  ever  escaped  his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  Sir,  this  New  Eng 
land  opposition   to   the  embargo  laws; 
let  us  trace  it,  till  we  discern  the  princi 
ple  which  controlled  and  governed  New 
1  Mr.  Hillhouse,  of  Connecticut. 


England  throughout  the  whole  course 
of  that  opposition.  We  shall  then  see 
what  similarity  there  is  between  the 
New  England  school  of  constitutional* 
opinions,  and  this  modern  Carolina 
school.  The  gentleman,  I  think,  read 
a  petition  from  some  single  individual 
addressed  to  the  legislature  of  Massachu 
setts,  asserting  the  Carolina  doctrine; 
that  is,  the  right  of  State  interference 
to  arrest  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The 
fate  of  that  petition  shows  the  senti 
ment  of  the  legislature.  It  met  no 
favor.  The  opinions  of  Massachusetts 
were  very  different.  They  had  been  ex 
pressed  in  1798,  in  answer  to  the  reso 
lutions  of  Virginia,  and  she  did  not 
depart  from  them,  nor  bend  them  to 
the  times.  Misgoverned,  wronged,  op 
pressed,  as  she  felt  herself  to  be,  she 
still  held  fast  her  integrity  to  the  Union. 
The  gentleman  may  find  in  her  proceed 
ings  much  evidence  of  dissatisfaction 
with  the  measures  of  government,  and 
great  and  deep  dislike  to  the  embargo; 
all  this  makes  the  case  so  much  the 
stronger  for  her;  for,  notwithstanding 
all  this  dissatisfaction  and  dislike,  she 
still  claimed  no  right  to  sever  the  bonds 
of  the  Union.  There  was  heat,  and 
there  was  anger  in  her  political  feeling. 
Be  it  so;  but  neither  her  heat  nor  her 
anger  betrayed  her  into  infidelity  to  the 
government.  The  gentleman  labors  to 
prove  that  she  disliked  the  embargo  as 
much  as  South  Carolina  dislikes  the 
tariff,  and  expressed  her  dislike  as 
strongly.  Be  it  so;  but  did  she  propose 
the  Carolina  remedy?  did  she  threaten 
to  interfere,  by  State  authority,  to  annul 
the  laws  of  the  Union?  That  is  the 
question  for  the  gentleman's  consider 
ation. 

No  doubt,  Sir,  a  great  majority  of  the 
people  of  New  England  conscientiously 
believed  the  embargo  law  of  1807  uncon 
stitutional  ;  as  conscientiously,  certainly, 
as  the  people  of  South  Carolina  hold  that 
opinion  of  the  tariff.  They  reasoned 
thus:  Congress  has  power  to  regulate 
commerce ;  but  here  is  a  law,  they  said, 
stopping  all  commerce,  and  stopping  it 
indefinitely.  The  law  is  perpetual ;  that 
is,  it  is  not  limited  in  point  of  time,  and 


THE   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 


261 


must  of  course  continue  until  it  shall  be 
repealed  by  some  other  law.  It  is  as 
perpetual,  therefore,  as  the  law  against 
treason  or  murder.  Now,  is  this  regu 
lating  commerce,  or  destroying  it?  Is 
it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule 
to  commerce,  as  a  subsisting  thing,  or  is 
it  putting  an  end  to  it  altogether? 
Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  a 
majority  in  New  England  deemed  this 
law  a  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
The  very  case  required  by  the  gentle 
man  to  justify  State  interference  had 
then  arisen.  Massachusetts  believed 
this  law  to  be  "a  deliberate,  palpable, 
and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not 
granted  by  the  Constitution."  Delib 
erate  it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued; 
palpable  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in 
the  Constitution  gave  the  power,  and 
only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion  most 
violent,  raised  it;  dangerous  it  was,  since 
it  threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  im 
portant  interests.  Here,  then,  was  a 
Carolina  case.  How  did  Massachusetts 
deal  with  it?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a 
plain,  manifest,  palpable  violation  of 
the  Constitution,  and  it  brought  ruin  to 
her  doors.  Thousands  of  families,  and 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  individuals, 
were  beggared  by  it.  While  she  saw 
and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and  felt  also, 
that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy,  it 
was  perfectly  futile;  that  the  country 
was  no  way  benefited  by  that  which 
caused  so  much  individual  distress ;  that 
it  was  efficient  only  for  the  production 
of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  inflicted  on 
ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under  such 
circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts 
demean  herself?  Sir,  she  remonstrated, 
she  memorialized,  she  addressed  herself 
to  the  general  government,  not  exactly 
"  with  the  concentrated  energy  of  pas 
sion,"  but  with  her  own  strong  sense, 
and  the  energy  of  sober  conviction.  But 
she  did  not  interpose  the  arm  of  her  own 
power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the 
embargo.  Far  from  it.  Her  principles 
bound  her  to  two  things ;  and  she  fol 
lowed  her  principles,  lead  where  they 
might.  First,  to  submit  to  every  con 
stitutional  law  of  Congress,  and  sec 
ondly,  if  the  constitutional  validity  of 


the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer  that  question 
to  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunals. 
The  first  principle  is  vain  and  ineffect 
ual  without  the  second.  A  majority  of 
us  in  New  England  believed  the  em 
bargo  law  unconstitutional;  but  the 
great  question  was,  and  always  will  be  in 
such  cases,  Who  is  to  decide  this?  Who 
is  to  judge  between  the  people  and  the 
government?  And,  Sir,  it  is  quite 
plain,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  Unit 
ed  States  confers  on  the  government 
itself,  to  be  exercised  by  its  appropriate 
department,  and  under  its  own  respon 
sibility  to  the  people,  this  power  of  de 
ciding  ultimately  and  conclusively  upon 
the  just  extent  of  its  own  authority.  If 
this  had  not  been  done,  we  should  not 
have  advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the 
old  Confederation. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  em 
bargo  law  was  unconstitutional,  the 
people  of  New  England  were  yet  equally 
clear  in  the  opinion,  (it  was  a  matter 
they  did  doubt  upon,)  that  the  ques 
tion,  after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the 
judicial  tribunals  of  the  United  States. 
Before  those  tribunals,  therefore,  they 
brought  the  question.  Under  the  pro 
visions  of  the  law,  they  had  given 
bonds  to  millions  in  amount,  and  which 
were  alleged  to  be  forfeited.  They 
suffered  the  bonds  to  be  sued,  and 
thus  raised  the  question.  In  the  old- 
fashioned  way  of  settling  disputes,  they 
went  to  law.  The  case  came  to  hearing 
and  solemn  argument;  and  he  who  es 
poused  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for 
them  against  the  validity  of  the  em 
bargo  act,  was  none  other  than  that 
great  man,  of  whom  the  gentleman  has 
made  honorable  mention,  Samuel  Dex 
ter.  He  was  then,  Sir,  in  the  fulness 
of  his  knowledge,  and  the  maturity  of 
his  strength.  He  bad  retired  from  long 
and  distinguished  public  service  here, 
to  the  renewed  pursuit  of  professional 
duties,  carrying  with  him  all  that  en 
largement  and  expansion,  all  the  new 
strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaint 
ance  with  the  more  general  subjects 
discussed  in  the  national  councils  is 
capable  of  adding  to  professional  attain 
ment,  in  a  mind  of  true  greatness  and 


262 


THE   EEPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and 
he  was  also  a  statesman.  He  had 
studied  the  Constitution,  when  he  filled 
public  station,  that  he  might  defend  it; 
he  had  examined  its  principles  that  he 
might  maintain  them.  More  than  all 
men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man, 
he  was  attached  to  the  general  govern 
ment  and  to  the  union  of  the  States. 
His  feelings  and  opinions  all  ran  in  that 
direction.  A  question  of  constitutional 
law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects,  that  one 
which  was  best  suited  to  his  talents  and 
learning.  Aloof  from  technicality,  and 
unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a 
question  gave  opportunity  for  that  deep 
and  clear  analysis,  that  mighty  grasp  of 
principle,  which  so  much  distinguished 
his  higher  efforts.  His  very  statement 
was  argument;  his  inference  seemed 
demonstration.  The  earnestness  of  his 
own  conviction  wrought  conviction  in 
others.  One  was  convinced,  and  be 
lieved,  and  assented,  because  it  was( 
gratifying,  delightful,  to  think,  and 
feel,  and  believe,  in  unison  with  an  in 
tellect  of  such  evident  superiority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  Sir,  such  as  I  have  de 
scribed  him,  argued  the  New  England 
cause.  He  put  into  his  effort  his  whole 
heart,  as  well  as  all  the  powers  of  his 
understanding;  for  he  had  avowed,  in 
the  most  public  manner,  his  entire  con 
currence  with  his  neighbors  on  the 
point  in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause; 
it  was  lost,  and  New  England  sub 
mitted.  The  established  tribunals  pro 
nounced  the  law  constitutional,  and 
New  England  acquiesced.  Now,  Sir,  is 
not  this  the  exact  opposite  of  the  doc 
trine  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro 
lina?  According  to  him,  instead  of 
referring  to  the  judicial  tribunals,  we 
should  have  broken  up  the  embargo  by 
laws  of  our  own;  we  should  have  re 
pealed  it,  quoad  New  England;  for  we 
had  a  strong,  palpable,  and  oppressive 
case.  Sir,  we  believed  the  embargo 
unconstitutional;  but  still  that  was 
matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was  to  de 
cide  it?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case; 
but,  nevertheless,  we  did  not  take  the 
law  into  our  own  hands,  because  we  did 
not  wish  to  bring  about  a  revolution, 


nor  to  break  up  the  Union ;  for  I  main 
tain,  that  between  submission  to  the 
decision  of  the  constituted  tribunals, 
and  revolution,  or  disunion,  there  is  no 
middle  ground;  there  is  no  ambiguous 
condition,  half  allegiance  and  half  re 
bellion.  And,  Sir,  how  futile,  how 
very  futile  it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of 
State  interference,  and  then  attempt  to 
save  it  from  the  character  of  unlawful 
resistance,  by  adding  terms  of  qualifica 
tion  to  the  causes  and  occasions,  leaving 
all  these  qualifications,  like  the  case  it 
self,  in  the  discretion  of  the  State  gov 
ernments.  It  must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is 
said,  a  deliberate  case,  a  palpable  case, 
a  dangerous  case.  But  then  the  State 
is  still  left  at  liberty  to  decide  for  her 
self  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate, 
what  is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous. 
Do  adjectives  and  epithets  avail  any 
thing? 

Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  consti 
tuted,  that  the  merits  of  both  sides  of  a 
controversy  appear  very  clear,  and  very 
palpable,  to  those  who  respectively  es 
pouse  them;  and  both  sides  usually 
grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  ad 
vances.  South  Carolina  sees  uncon- 
stitutionality  in  the  tariff;  she  sees 
oppression  there  also,  and  she  sees 
danger.  Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision 
not  less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  tariff, 
and  sees  no  such  thing  in  it ;  she  sees  it 
all  constitutional,  all  useful,  all  safe. 
The  faith  of  South  Carolina  is  strength 
ened  by  opposition,  and  she  now  not 
only  sees,  but  resolves,  that  the  tariff 
is  palpably  unconstitutional,  oppressive, 
and  dangerous;  but  Pennsylvania,  not 
to  be  behind  her  neighbors,  and  equally 
willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith  by  a 
confident  asseveration,  resolves,  also,  and 
gives  to  every  warm  affirmative  of 
South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright, 
Pennsylvania  negative.  South  Caro 
lina,  to  show  the  strength  and  unity  of 
her  opinion,  brings  her  assembly  to  a 
unanimity,  within  seven  voices;  Penn 
sylvania,  not  to  be  outdone  in  this  re 
spect  any  more  than  in  others,  reduces 
her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote. 
Now,  Sir,  again,  I  ask  the  gentleman, 
What  is  to  be  done?  Are  these  States 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


263 


both  right?  Is  he  bound  to  consider 
them  both  right?  If  not,  which  is  in 
the  wrong?  or  rather,  which  has  the 
best  right  to  decide?  And  if  he,  and  if 
I,  are  not  to  know  what  the  Constitu 
tion  means,  and  what  it  is,  till  those 
two  State  legislatures,  and  the  twenty- 
two  others,  shall  agree  in  its  construc 
tion,  what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we 
have  sworn  to  maintain  it?  I  was  for 
cibly  struck,  Sir,  with  one  reflection,  as 
the  gentleman  went  on  in  his  speech. 

.  He  quoted  Mr.  Madison's  resolutions, 
to  prove  that  a  State  may  interfere,  in 
a  case  of  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dan 
gerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted. 
The  honorable  member  supposes  the 
tariff  law  to  be  such  an  exercise  of 
power;  and  that  consequently  a  case 
has  arisen  in  which  the  State  may,  if  it 
see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law.  Now 
it  so  happens,  nevertheless,  that  Mr. 
Madison  deems  this  same  tariff  law 
quite  constitutional.  Instead  of  a  clear 
and  palpable  violation,  it  is,  in  his 
judgment,  no  violation  at  all.  So  that, 
while  they  use  his  authority  for  a  hypo 
thetical  case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very 
case  before  them.  All  this,  Sir,  shows 
the  inherent  futility,  I  had  almost  used 
a  stronger  word,  of  conceding  this 
power  of  interference  to  the  State,  and 
then  attempting  to  secure  it  from  abuse 
by  imposing  qualifications  of  which  the 
States  themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of 
two  things  is  true;  either  the  laws  of 
the  Union  are  beyond  the  discretion  and 
beyond  the  control  of  the  States;  or 
else  we  have  no  constitution  of  general 
government,  and  are  thrust  back  again 
to  the  days  of  the  Confederation. 

P,  Let  me  here  say,  Sir,  that  if  the  gen 
tleman's  doctrine  had  been  received  and 
acted  upon  in  New  England,  in  the 
times  of  the  embargo  and  non-inter 
course,  we  should  probably  not  now 
have  been  here.  The  government  would 
very  likely  have  gone  to  pieces,  and 
crumbled  into  dust.  No  stronger  case 
can  ever  arise  than  existed  under  those 
laws;  no  States  can  ever  entertain  a 
clearer  conviction  than  the  New  Eng 
land  States  then  entertained  ;  and  if 
they  had  been  under  the  influence  of 


that  heresy  of  opinion,  as  I  must  call 
it,  which  the  honorable  member  es 
pouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all  proba 
bility,  have  been  scattered  to  the  four 
winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  therefore, 
to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case;  I 
ask  him  to  come  forth  and  declare, 
whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  New  Eng 
land  States  would  have  been  justified 
in  interfering  to  break  up  the  embargo 
system  under  the  conscientious  opinions 
which  they  held  upon  it?  Had  they  a 
right  to  annul  that  law?  Does  he  ad 
mit  or  deny?  If  what  is  thought  pal 
pably  unconstitutional  in  South  Caro 
lina  justifies  that  State  in  arresting  the 
progress  of  the  law,  tell  me  whether 
that  which  was  thought  palpably  uncon 
stitutional  also  in  Massachusetts  would 
have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same 
thing.  Sir,  I  deny  the  whole  doctrine. 
It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  Con 
stitution  to  stand  on.  No  public  man 
of  reputation  ever  advanced  it  in  Massa 
chusetts  in  the  warmest  times,  or  could 
maintain  himself  upon  it  there  at  any 
time. 

I  wish  now,  Sir,  to  make  a  remark 
upon  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798. 
I  cannot  undertake  to  say  how  these 
resolutions  were  understood  by  those 
who  passed  them.  Their  language  is 
not  a  little  indefinite.  In  the  case  of 
the  exercise  by  Congress  of  a  danger 
ous  power  not  granted  to  them,  the 
resolutions  assert  the  right,  on  the  part 
of  the  State,  to  interfere  and  arrest  the 
progress  of  the  evil.  This  is  suscepti 
ble  of  more  than  one  interpretation.  It 
may  mean  no  more  than  that  the  States 
may  interfere  by  complaint  and  remon 
strance,  or  by  proposing  to  the  people 
an  alteration  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion.  This  would  all  be  quite  unob 
jectionable.  Or  it  may  be  that  no  more 
is  meant  than  to  assert  the  general 
right  of  revolution,  as  against  all  gov 
ernments,  in  cases  of  intolerable  op 
pression.  This  no  one  doubts,  and  this, 
in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  who  framed 
the  resolutions  could  have  meant  by  it ; 
for  I  shall  not  readily  believe  that  he 
was  ever  of  opinion  that  a  State,  under 
the  Constitution  and  in  conformity  with 


264 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


it,  could,  upon  the  ground  of  her  own 
opinion  of  its  unconstitutionally,  how 
ever  clear  and  palpable  she  might  think 
the  case,  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  so 
far  as  it  should  operate  on  herself  by 
her  own  legislative  power. 

L 

\{  I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  Sir,  Whence  is 
this  supposed  right  of  the  States  derived? 
Where  do  they  find  the  power  to  inter 
fere  with  the  laws  of  the  Union?  Sir, 
the  opinion  which  the  honorable  gentle 
man  maintains  is  a  notion  founded  in  a 
total  misapprehension,  in  my  judgment, 
of  the  origin  of  this  government,  and  of 
the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I 
hold  it  to  be  a  popular  government, 
erected  by  the  people ;  those  who  admin 
ister  it,  responsible  to  the  people;  and 
itself  capable  of  being  amended  and 
modified,  just  as  the  people  may  choose 
it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as 
truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as  the 
State  governments.  It  is  created  for 
one  purpose;  the  State  governments  for 
another.  It  has  its  own  powers;  they 
have  theirs.  There  is  no  more  authority 
with  them  to  arrest  the  operation  of  a 
law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to 
arrest  the  operation  of  their  laws.  We 
are  here  to  administer  a  Constitution 
emanating  immediately  from  the  people, 
and  trusted  by  them  to  our  administra 
tion.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  State 
governments.  It  is  of  no  moment  to 
the  argument,  that  certain  acts  of  the 
State  legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill 
our  seats  in  this  body.  That  is  not  one 
of  their  original  State  powers,  a  part  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  It  is  a 
duty  which  the  people,  by  the  Constitu 
tion  itself,  have  imposed  on  the  State 
legislatures;  and  which  they  might  have 
left  to  be  performed  elsewhere,  if  they 
had  seen  fit.  So  they  have  left  the 
choice  of  President  with  electors;  but 
all  this  does  not  affect  the  proposition 
that  this  whole  government,  President, 
Senate,  and  House  of  liepresentatives, 
is  a  popular  government.  It  leaves  it 
still  all  its  popular  character.  The 
governor  of  a  State  (in  some  of  the 
States)  is  chosen,  not  directly  by  the 
people,  but  by  those  who  are  chosen  by 


the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  perform 
ing,  among  other  duties,  that  of  electing 
a  governor.  Is  the  government  of  the 
State,  on  that  account,  not  a  popular 
government?  This  government,  Sir,  is 
the  independent  offspring  of  the  popular 
will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  State 
legislatures  ;  nay,  more,  if  the  whole 
truth  must  be  told,  the  people  brought 
it  into  existence,  established  it,  and 
have  hitherto  supported  it,  for  the  very 
purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing 
certain  salutary  restraints  on  State  sov 
ereignties.  The  States  cannot  now 
make  war;  they  cannot  contract  alli 
ances;  they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself, 
separate  regulations  of  commerce;  they 
cannot  lay  imposts;  they  cannot  coin 
money.  If  this  Constitution,  Sir,  be 
the  creature  of  State  legislatures,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  it  has  obtained 
a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of 
,its  creators. 

The  people,  then,  Sir,  erected  this 
government.  They  gave  it  a  Constitu 
tion,  and  in  that  Constitution  they  have 
enumerated  the  powers  which  they  be 
stow  on  it.  They  have  made  it  a  lim 
ited  government.  They  have  defined 
its  authority.  They  have  restrained  it 
to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are 
granted;  and  all  others,  they  declare, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people. 
But,  Sir,  they  have  not  stopped  here. 
If  they  had,  they  would  have  accom 
plished  but  half  their  work.  No  defiui 
tion  can  be  so  clear,  as  to  avoid  possibil 
ity  of  doubt;  no  limitation  so  precise 
as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who, 
then,  shall  construe  this  grant  of  the 
people?  Who  shall  interpret  their  will, 
where  it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left 
it  doubtful?  With  whom  do  they  re 
pose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on 
the  powers  of  the  government?  Sir, 
they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  fullest 
manner.  They  have  left  it  with  the 
government  itself,  in  its  appropriate 
branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the 
main  design,  for  which  the  whole  Con 
stitution  was  framed  and  adopted,  was 
to  establish  a  government  that  should 
not  be  obliged  to  act  through  State 
agency,  or  depend  on  State  opinion  and 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


265 


State  discretion.  The  people  had  had 
quite  enough  of  that  kind  of  govern 
ment  under  the  Confederation.  Under 
that  system,  the  legal  action,  the  appli 
cation  of  law  to  individuals,  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  States.  Congress 
could  only  recommend ;  their  acts  were 
not  of  binding  force,  till  the  States  had 
adopted  and  sanctioned  them.  Are  we 
in  that  condition  still?  Are  we  yet 
at  the  mercy  of  State  discretion  and 
State  construction?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then 
vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain  the 
Constitution  under  which  we  sit. 
^  But,  Sir,  the  people  have  wisely  pro 
vided,  in  the  Constitution  itself,  a 
proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for 
settling  questions  of  constitutional  law. 
There  are  in  the  Constitution  grants  of 
powers  to  Congress,  and  restrictions  on 
these  powers.  There  are,  also,  prohibi 
tions  on  the  States.  Some  authority 
must,  therefore,  necessarily  exist,  hav 
ing  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to  fix  and 
ascertain  the  interpretation  of  these 
grants,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions. 
The  Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out, 
ordained,  and  established  that  authority. 
How  has  it  accomplished  this  great  and 
essential  end?  By  declaring,  Sir,  that 
"  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  made  in  pursuance  thereof, 
shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any 
thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any 
State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 
-  This,  Sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By 
this  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  is  de 
clared.  The  people  so  will  it.  No 
State  law  is  to  be  valid  which  comes  in 
conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any 
law  of  the  United  States  passed  in  pur 
suance  of  it.  But  who  shall  decide  this 
question  of  interference?  To  whom  lies 
the  last  appeal?  This,  Sir,  the  Consti 
tution  itself  decides  also,  by  declaring, 
"  that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to 
all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States."  These 
two  provisions  cover  the  whole  ground. 
XThe.y  are,  in  truth,  the  keystone  of  the 
I  arch!  With  these  it  is  a  government; 
I  without  them  it  is  a  confederation.  In 
^pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express 


provisions,  Congress  established,  at  its 
very  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a 
mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect, 
and  for  bringing  all  questions  of  consti 
tutional  power  to  the  final  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court.  It  then,  Sir,  be 
came  a  government.  It  then  had  the 
means  of  self-protection;  and  but  for 
this,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
been  now  among  things  which  are  past. 
Having  constituted  the  government,  and' 
declared  its  powers,  the  people  have  fur 
ther  said,  that,  since  somebody  must 
decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers, 
the  government  shall  itself  decide ;  sub 
ject,  always,  like  other  popular  govern 
ments,  to  its  responsibility  to  the  people. 
And  now,  Sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it  that  a 
State  legislature  acquires  any  power  to 
interfere?  Who,  or  what,  gives  them 
the  right  to  say  to  the  people,  "We,  who 
are  your  agents  and  servants  for  one  pur 
pose,  will  undertake  to  decide,  that  your 
other  agents  and  servants,  appointed  by 
you  for  another  purpose,  have  transcend 
ed  the  authority  you  gave  them  !  "  The 
reply  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent, 
"Who  made  you  a  judge  over  anoth 
er's  servants?  To  their  own  masters 
they  stand  or  fall." 

'{/  Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  legis 
latures  altogether.  It  cannot  stand  the 
test  of  examination.  Gentlemen  may 
say,  that,  in  an  extreme  case,  a  State 
government  might  protect  the  people 
from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in 
such  a  case,  the  people  might  protect 
themselves,  without  the  aid  of  the  State 
governments.  Such  a  case  warrants 
revolution.  It  must  make,  when  it 
comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A  nullifying 
act  of  a  State  legislature  cannot  alter 
the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more 
lawful.  In  maintaining  these  senti 
ments,  Sir,  I  am  but  asserting  the  rights 
of  the  people.  I  state  what  they  have 
declared,  and  insist  on  their  right  to  de 
clare  it.  They  have  chosen  to  repose 
this  power  in  the  general  government, 
and  I  think  it  my  duty  to  support  it,  like 
other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  the 
competency  of  South  Carolina,  or  any 
other  State,  to  prescribe  my  constitu- 


266 


THE   REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


tional  duty;  or  to  settle,  between  me 
and  the  people,  the  validity  of  laws  of 
Congress  for  which  I  have  voted.  I 
/  decline  her  urnpkagej  I  have  not  sworn 
to  support  the  Constitution  according  to 
her  construction  of  its  clauses.  I  have 
not  stipulated,  by  my  oath  of  office  or 
otherwise,  to  come  under  any  responsi 
bility,  except  to  the  people,  and  those 
whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon 
the  question,  whether  laws,  supported 
by  my  votes,  conform  to  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  country.  And,  Sir,  if  we 
look  to  the  general  nature  of  the  case, 
could  any  thing  have  been  more  prepos 
terous,  than  to  make  a  government  for 
the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave  its  pow 
ers  subject,  not  to  one  interpretation, 
but  to  thirteen  or  twenty-four  interpre 
tations?  Instead  of  one  tribunal,  estab 
lished  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with 
power  to  decide  for  all,  shall  constitu 
tional  questions  be  left  to  four-and- 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty 
to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  bound  to 
respect  the  decisions  of  others,  —  and 
each  at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  con 
struction  on  every  new  election  of  its 
own  members?  Would  any  thing,  with 
such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with 
such  a  destitution  of  all  principle,  be  fit 
to  be  called  a  government?  No,  Sir. 
It  should  not  be  denominated  a  Consti 
tution.  It  should  be  called,  rather, 
a  collection  of  topics  for  everlasting 
controversy ;  heads  of  debate  for  a  dis 
putatious  people.  It  would  not  be  a 
government.  It  would  not  be  adequate 
to  any  practical  good,  or  fit  for  any 
country  to  live  under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  mis 
understood,  allow  me  to  repeat  again,  in 
the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim  no  pow 
ers  for  the  government  by  forced  or  un 
fair  construction.  I  admit  that  it  is  a 
government  of  strictly  limited  powers; 
of  enumerated,  specified,  and  particular 
ized  powers;  and  that  whatsoever  is  not 
granted,  is  withheld.  But  notwithstand 
ing  all  this,  and  however  the  grant  of 
powers  may  be  expressed,  its  limit  and 
extent  may  yet,  in  some  cases,  admit 
of  doubt;  and  the  general  government 
would  be  good  for  nothing,  it  would  be 


incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some  mode 
had  not  been  provided  in  which  those 
doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might  be 
peaceably,  but  authoritatively,  solved. 

AncUnow,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run 
the  honorable  gentleman's  doctrine  a  lit 
tle  into  its  practical  application.  Let  us 
look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If  a 
thing  can  be  done,  an  ingenious  man  can 
tell  how  it  is  to  be  done,  and  I  wish  to 
be  informed  how  this  State  interference 
is  to  be  put  in  practice,  without  violence, 
bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will  take 
the  existing  case  of  the  tariff .  law. 
South  Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up 
her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not 
repeal  it,  (as  we  probably  shall  not,) 
she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the  rem 
edy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must 
suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  legislature, 
declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress 
usually  called  the  tariff  laws  null  and 
void,  so  far  as  they  respect  South  Caro 
lina,  or  the  citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all 
is  a  paper  transaction,  and  easy  enough. 
But  the  collector  at  Charleston  is  col 
lecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff 
laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be  stopped. 
The  collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the 
tariff  duties  are  not  paid.  The  State 
authorities  will  undertake  their  rescue, 
the  marshal,  with  his  posse,  will  come 
to  the  collector's  aid,  and  here  the  con 
test  begins.  The  militia  of  the  State 
will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullify 
ing  act.  They  will  march,  Sir,  under  a 
very  gallant  leader;  for  I  believe  the 
honorable  member  himself  commands 
the  militia  of  that  part  of  the  State. 
He  will  raise  the  NULLIFYING  ACT  on 
his  standard,  and  spread  it  out  as  his 
banner!  It  will  have  a  preamble,  set 
ting  forth  that  the  tariff  laws  are  palpa 
ble,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations 
of  the  Constitution!  He  will  proceed, 
with  this  banner  flying,  to  the  custom 
house  in  Charleston, 

"All  the  while 

Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds  " 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell 
the  collector  that  he  must  collect  no 
more  duties  under  any  of  the  tariff  laws. 
This  he  will  be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say, 
by  the  way,  with  a  grave  countenance, 


THE  REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


267 


considering  what  hand  South  Carolina 
herself  had  in  that  of  1816.  But,  Sir, 
the  collector  would  not,  probably,  desist, 
at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him 
the  law  of  Congress,  the  treasury  instruc 
tion,  and  his  own  oath  of  office.  He 
would  say,  he  should  perform  his  duty, 
come  what  come  might, 
v  IJere  would  ensue  a  pause;  for  they 
say  that  a  certain  stillness  precedes  the 
tempest.  The  trumpeter  would  hold  his 
breath  awhile,  and  before  all  this  mili 
tary  array  should  fall  on  the  custom 
house,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is  very 
probable  some  of  those  composing  it 
would  request  of  their  gallant  com 
mand  er-in-chief  to  be  informed  a  little 
upon  the  point  of  law;  for  they  have, 
doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions 
as  a  lawyer,  as  well  as  for  his  bravery 
as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has  read 
Blackstone  and  the  Constitution,  as  well 
as  Tujgenne  and  Vauban.  They  would 
ask  rnrn,  therefore,"  something  concern 
ing  their  rights  in  this  matter.  They 
would  inquire,  whether  it  was  not  some 
what  dangerous  to  resist  a  law  of  the 
United  States.  What  would  be  the  na 
ture  of  their  offence,  they  would  wish 
to  learn,  if  they,  by  military  force  and 
array,  resisted  the  execution  in  Carolina 
of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  it 
should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law 
was  constitutional  ?  He  would  answer, 
of  course,  Treason.  No  lawyer  could 
give  any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he 
would  tell  them,  had  learned  that,  some 
years  ago.  How,  then,  they  would  ask, 
do  you  propose  to  defend  us?  We  are 
not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a 
way  of  taking  people  off  that  we  do  not 
much  relish.  How  do  you  propose  to 
defend  us?  "  Look  at  my  floating  ban 
ner,"  he  would  reply;  "see  there  the 
nullifying  law!"  Is  it  your  opinion, 
gallant  commander,  they  would  then 
say,  that,  if  we  should  be  indicted 
for  treason,  that  same  floating  banner 
of  yours  would  make  a  good  plea  in 
bar?  "  South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign 
State,"  he  would  reply.  That  is  true; 
but  would  the  judge  admit  our  plea? 
"These  tariff  laws,"  he  would  repeat, 
"  are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  delib 


erately,  dangerously."  That  may  all  be 
so;  but  if  the  tribunal  should  not  hap 
pen  to  be  of  that  opinion,  shall  we  swing 
for  it?  We  are  ready  to  die  for  our  coun 
try,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  business, 
this  dying  without  touching  the  ground! 
After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hemp  tax 
worse  than  any  part  of  the  tariff. 
.^Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentle 
man  would  be  in  a  dilemma,  like  that  of 
another  great  general.  He  would  have 
a  knot  before  him  which  he  could  not 
untie.  He  must  cut  it  with  his  sword. 
He  must  say  to  his  followers,  "  Defend 
yourselves  with  your  bayonets";  and 
this  is  war,  — civil  war. 
Q  Direct  collision,  therefore,  between 
force  and  force,  is  the  unavoidable  re 
sult  of  that  remedy  for  the  revision  of 
unconstitutional  laws  which  the  gentle 
man  contends  for.  It  must  happen  in 
the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied. 
Is  not  this  the  plain  result?  To  resist 
by  force  the  execution  of  a  law,  gener 
ally,  is  treason.  Can  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  take  notice  of  the  indul 
gence  of  a  State  to  commit  treason?  The 
common  saying,  that  a  State  cannot 
commit  treason  herself,  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  Can  she  authorize  others  to 
do  it?  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an 
act  of  Pennsylvania,  Annulling  the  law 
of  Congress,  would  it  have  helped  his 
case?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will,  these 
doctrines  go  the  length  of  revolution. 
They  are  incompatible  with  any  peace 
able  administration  of  the  government. 
They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil 
commotion ;  and  therefore  it  is,  that  at 
their  commencement,  when  they  are 
first  found  to  be  maintained  by  re 
spectable  men,  and  in  a  tangible  form, 
I  enter  my  public  protest  against  them 
all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that, 
if  this  government  be  the  sole  judge  uf 
the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  whether 
that  right  of  judging  be  in  Congress  or 
the  Supreme  Court,  it  equally  subverts 
State  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman 
sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although  he  can 
not  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging, 
in  this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of 
State  legislatures,  has  any  tendency  to 


238 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


subvert  the  government  of  the  Union. 
The  gentleman's  opinion  may  be,  that 
the  right  ought  not  to  have  been  lodged 
with  the  general  government;  he  may 
like  better  such  a  constitution  as  we 
should  have  under  the  right  of  State  in 
terference;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on 
the  plain  matter  of  fact.  I  ask  him  to 
meet  me  on  the  Constitution  itself.  I 
ask  him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there, 
clearly  and  visibly  found  there? 
it  But,  Sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and 
What  are  the  grounds  of  it?  Let  it  be 
remembered,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  is  not  unalterable.  It 
is  to  continue  in  its  present  form  no 
longer  than  the  people  who  established 
it  shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they 
shall  become  convinced  that  they  have 
made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  par 
tition  and  distribution  of  power  between 
the  State  governments  and  the  general 
government,  they  can  alter  that  distribu 
tion  at  will. 

If  any  thing  be  found  in  the  national 
Constitution,  either  by  original  provision 
or  subsequent  interpretation,  which 
ought  not  to  be  in  it,  the  people  know 
how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any  construc 
tion,  unacceptable  to  them,  be  estab 
lished,  so  as  to  become  practically  a 
part  of  the  Constitution,  they  will  amend 
it,  at  their  own  sovereign  pleasure.  But 
while  the  people  choose  to  maintain  it 
as  it  is,  while  they  are  satisfied  with  it, 
and  refuse  to  change  it,  who  has  given, 
or  who  can  give,  to  the  State  legislatures 
a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  interference, 
construction,  or  otherwise?  Gentlemen 
do  not  seem  to  recollect  that  the  people 
have  any  power  to  do  any  thing  for 
themselves.  They  imagine  there  is  no 
safety  for  them,  any  longer  than  they 
are  under  the  close  guardianship  of  the 
State  legislatures.  Sir,  the  people  have 
not  trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to 
the  general  Constitution,  to  these  hands. 
They  have  required  other  security,  and 
taken  other  bonds.  They  have  chosen 
to  trust  themselves,  first,  to  the  plain 
words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such 
construction  as  the  government  them 
selves,  in  doubtful  cases,  should  put  on 
their  own  powers,  under  their  oaths  of 


office,  and  subject  to  their  responsibility 
to  them;  just  as  the  people  of  a  State 
trust  their  own  State  governments  with 
a  similar  power.  Secondly,  they  have 
reposad  their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  fre 
quent  elections,  and  in  their  own  power 
to  remove  their  own  servants  and  agents 
whenever  they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they 
have  reposed  trust  in  the  judicial  power, 
which,  in  order  that  it  might  be  trust 
worthy,  they  have  made  as  respectable, 
as  disinterested,  and  as  independent  as 
was  practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have 
seen  fit  to  rely,  in  case  of  necessity,  or 
high  expediency,  on  their  known  and 
admitted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the 
Constitution,  peaceably  and  quietly, 
whenever  experience  shall  point  out-de- 
fects  or  imperfections.  And,  finally, 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  in 
directly,  authorized  any  State  legislature 
to  construe  or  interpret  their  high  instru 
ment  of  government;  much  less,  to  in 
terfere,  by  their  own  power,  to  arrest 
its  course  and  operation. 
p  If,  Sir,  the  people  in  these  respects 
had  done  otherwise  than  they  have  done, 
their  Constitution  could  neither  have 
been  preserved,  nor  would  it  have  been 
worth  preserving.  And  if  its  plain  pro 
visions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and 
these  new  doctrines  interpolated  in  it, 
it  will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a 
being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or 
more  recent,  could  possibly  desire.  It 
will  exist  in  every  State  but  as  a  poor 
dependent  on  State  permission.  It  must 
borrow  leave  to  be;  and  will  be,  no  lon 
ger  than  State  pleasure,  or  State  discre 
tion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence, 
and  to  prolong  its  poor  existence. 
X  But,  Sir,  although  there  are  fears, 
there  are  hopes  also.  The  people  have 
preserved  this,  their  own  chosen  Consti 
tution,  for  forty  years,  and  have  seen 
their  happiness,  prosperity,  and  renown 
grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen 
with  its  strength.  They  are  now,  gen 
erally,  strongly  attached  to  it.  Over 
thrown  by  direct  assault,  it  cannot  be; 
evaded,  undermined,  NULLIFIED,  it  will 
not  be,  if  we  and  those  who  shall  suc 
ceed  us  here,  as  agents  and  represeuta- 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


269 


tives  of  the  people,  shall  conscientiously 
and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two  great 
branches  of  our  public  trust,  faithfully 
to  preserve,  and  wisely  to  administer  it. 
J^  Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the 
reasons  of  my  dissent  to  the  doctrines 
•which  have  been  advanced  and  main 
tained.  I  am  conscious  of  having  de 
tained  you  and  the  Senate  much  too 
long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate 
with  no  previous  deliberation,  such  as  is 
suited  to  the  discussion  of  so  grave  and 
important  a  subject.  But  it  is  a  subject 
of  which  my  heart  is  full,  and  I  have 
not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utter 
ance  of  its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I 
cannot,  even  now,  persuade  myself  to 
relinquish  it,  without  expressing  once 
more  my  deep  conviction,  that,  since  it 
respects  nothing  less  than  the  Union  of 
the  States,  it  is  of  most  vital  and  essen- 

ytial  importance  to  the  public  happiness. 

rl  profess,  Sir,  in  my  career  hitherto,  to 
have  kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity 
and  honor  of  the  whole  country,  and  the 
preservation  of  our  Federal  Union.  It 
is  to  that  Union  we  owe  our  safety  at 
home,  and  our  consideration  and  dignity 
abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are 
chiefly  indebted  for  whatever  makes  us 
most  proud  of  our  country.  That  Union 
we  reached  only  by  the  discipline  of  our 
virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity. 
It  had  its  origin  in  the  necessities  of  dis 
ordered  finance,  prostrate  commerce,  and 
ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign  influ 
ences,  these  great  interests  immediately 
awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and  sprang  forth 
with  newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its 
duration  has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  of 
its  utility  and  its  blessings ;  and  although 
our  territory  has  stretched  out  wider  and 
wider,  and  our  population  spread  farther 

_and  farther,  they  have  not  outrun  its  pro 
tection  or  its  benefits.  It  has  been  to  us 
all  a  copious  fountain  of  national,  social, 

^rind  personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  myself,  Sir,  to  look 
beyond  the  Union,  to  see_whaj^rmglit_lie 
hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I 
have  not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of 
preserving  liberty  when  the  bonds  that 
unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asun 
der.  I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to 


hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion, 
to  see  whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I 
can  fathom  the  depth  of  the  abyss  below ; 
nor  could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  coun 
sellor  in  the  affairs  of  this  government, 
whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly  bent 
on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  may 
be  best  preserved,  but  how  tolerable 
might  be  the  condition  of  the  people 
when  it  should  be  broken  up  and  de 
stroyed.  While  the  Union  lasts,  we 
have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  prospects 
spread  out  before  us,  for  us  and  our 
children.  Beyond  that  I  seel£__n£t_- to 
penetrate  the"  veil.  God  grant  that,  in 
my  day,  at  least,  thatjcurtain  may^  not 
rise!  God  grant  that  on  my  visionnevet* 
may  be  opened  what  lies  behind !  When 
my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  behold  l'.>r 
the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I 
not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and 
dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glorious 
Union ;  on  States  dissevered,  discordant, 
belligerent;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil 
feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  frater 
nal  blood!  Let  their  last  feeble  and 
lingering  glance  rather  behold  the  gor 
geous  ensign  of  the  republic,  now  known 
and  honored  throughout  the  earth,  still 
full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and 'tro 
phies  streaming  in  their  original  lustre, 
not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a 
single  star  obscured,  bearing  for  its 
motto,  no  such  miserable  interrogatory 
as  "What  is  all  this  worth?"  nor  : 
those  other  words  of  delusion  and  folly,  ~' 
' '  Liberty  first  and  Union  afterwards  ' ' ; 
but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in  char 
acters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its 
ample  folds,  as  they  float  over  the  sea 
and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind 
under  the  whole  heavens,  that  other  sen 
timent,  dear  to  every  true  American 
heart,  —  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and 
for  ever,  one  and  inseparable! 

Mr.  Hayne  having  rejoined  to  Mr. 
Webster,  especially  on  the  constitutional 
question,  Mr.  Webster  rose,  and,  in  conclu 
sion,  said :  — 

A  few  words,  Mr.  President,  on  this 
constitutional  argument,  which  the  hon 
orable  gentleman  has  labored  to  recon 
struct. 


270 


THE   REPLY   TO   HAYNE. 


His  argument  consists  of  two  propo 
sitions  and  an  inference.  His  proposi 
tions  are,  — 

1.  That  the  Constitution  is  a  compact 
between  the  States. 

2.  That  a  compact  between  two,  with 
authority  reserved  to  one  to  interpret  its 
terms,  would  be  a  surrender  to  that  one 
of  all  power  whatever. 

3.  Therefore,  (such  is  his  inference,) 
the  general   government  does  not   pos 
sess  the  authority  to  construe  its  own 
powers. 

Now,  Sir,  who  does  not  see,  without 
the  aid  of  exposition  or  detection,  the 
litter  confusion  of  ideas  involved  in  this 
so  elaborate  and  systematic  argument. 

The  Constitution,  it  is  said,  is  a 
compact  between  States ;  the  States, 
then,  and  the  States  only,  are  parties 
to  the  compact.  How  comes  the  gen 
eral  government  itself  a  party?  Upon 
the  honorable  gentleman's  hypothesis, 
the  general  government  is  the  result  of 
the  compact,  the  creature  of  the  com 
pact,  not  one  of  the  parties  to  it.  Yet 
the  argument,  as  the  gentleman  has  now 
stated  it,  makes  the  government  itself 
one  of  its  own  creators.  It  makes  it  a 
party  to  that  compact  to  which  it  owes 
its  own  existence. 

For  the  purpose  of  erecting  the  Con 
stitution  on  the  basis  of  a  compact,  the 
gentleman  considers  the  States  as  par 
ties  to  that  compact ;  but  as  soon  as  his 
compact  is  made,  then  he  chooses  to 
consider  the  general  government,  which 
is  the  offspring  of  that  compact,  not  its 
offspring,  but  one  of  its  parties;  and  so, 
being  a  party,  without  the  power  of 
judging  on  the  terms  of  compact.  Pray, 
Sir,  in  what  school  is  such  reasoning  as 
this  taught: 

If  the  whole  of  the  gentleman's  main 
proposition  were  conceded  to  him,  —  that 
is  to  say,  if  I  admit,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument,  that  the  Constitution  is  a 
compact  between  States,  —  the  inferences 
which  he  draws  from  that  proposition 
are  warranted  by  no  just  reasoning.  If 
the  Constitution  be  a  compact  between 
States,  still  that  Constitution,  or  that 
compact,  has  established  a  government, 
with  certain  powers ;  and  whether  it  be 


one  of  those  powers,  that  it  shall  con 
strue  and  interpret  for  itself  the  terms 
of  the  compact,  in  doubtful  cases,  is  a 
question  which  can  only  be  decided  by 
looking  to  the  compact,  and  inquiring 
what  provisions  it  contains  on  this  point. 
Without  any  inconsistency  with  natural 
reason,  the  government  even  thus  cre 
ated  might  be  trusted  with  this  power 
of  construction.  The  extent  of  its  pow 
ers,  therefore,  must  still  be  sought  for 
in  the  instrument  itself. 

If  the  old  Confederation  had  con 
tained  a  clause,  declaring  that  resolu 
tions  of  the  Congress  should  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  State  law 
or  constitution  to  the  contrary  notwith 
standing,  and  that  a  committee  of  Con 
gress,  or  any  other  body  created  by  it, 
should  possess  judicial  powrers,  extending 
to  all  cases  arising  under  resolutions  of 
Congress,  then  the  power  of  ultimate  de 
cision  would  have  been  vested  in  Congress 
under  the  Confederation,  although  that 
Confederation  was  a  compact  between 
States;  and  for  this  plain  reason, — that 
it  would  have  been  competent  to  the 
States,  who  alone  were  parties  to  the 
compact,  to  agree  who  should  decide  in 
cases  of  dispute  arising  on  the  construc 
tion  of  the  compact. 

For  the  same  reason,  Sir,  if  I  were 
now  to  concede  to  the  gentleman  his 
principal  proposition,  namely,  that  the 
Constitution  is  a  compact  between 
States,  the  question  would  still  be, 
What  provision  is  made,  in  this  com 
pact,  to  settle  points  of  disputed  con 
struction,  or  contested  power,  that  shall 
come  into  controversy?  And  this  ques 
tion  would  still  be  answered,  and  con 
clusively  answered,  by  the  Constitution 
itself. 

While  the  gentleman  is  contending 
against  construction,  he  himself  is  set 
ting  up  the  most  loose  and  dangerous  con 
struction.  The  Constitution  declares, 
that  the  laws  of  Congress  passed  in  pur 
suance  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  the  su 
preme  law  of  the  land.  No  construction 
is  necessary  here.  It  declares,  also, 
with  equal  plainness  arid  precision,  that 
the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States 
shall  extend  to  every  case  arising  under  the 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


271 


laws  of  Congress.  This  needs  no  con 
struction.  Here  is  a  law,  then,  which 
is  declared  to  be  supreme ;  and  here  is  a 
power  established,  which  is  to  interpret 
that  law.  Now,  Sir,  how  has  the  gen 
tleman  met  this?  Suppose  the  Consti 
tution  to  be  a  compact,  yet  here  are  its 
terms :  and  how  does  the  gentleman  get 
rid  of  them?  He  cannot  argue  the  seal 
off  the  bond,  nor  the  words  out  of  the 
instrument.  Here  they  are;  what  an 
swer  does  he  give  to  them?  None  in 
the  world,  Sir,  except,  that  the  effect  of 
this  would  be  to  place  the  States  in  a 
condition  of  inferiority;  and  that  it  re 
sults  from  the  very  nature  of  things, 
there  being  no  superior,  that  the  parties 
must  be  their  own  judges !  Thus  closely 
and  cogently  does  the  honorable  gentle 
man  reason  on  the  words  of  the  Consti 
tution.  The  gentleman  says,  if  there 
be  such  a  power  of  final  decision  in  the 
general  government,  he  asks  for  the 
grant  of  that  power.  Well,  Sir,  I  show 
him  the  grant.  I  turn  him  to  the  very 
wrords.  I  show  him  that  the  laws  of 
Congress  are  made  supreme;  and  that 
the  judicial  power  extends,  by  express 
words,  to  the  interpretation  of  these  laws. 
Instead  of  answering  this,  he  retreats 
into  the  general  reflection,  that  it  must 
result  from  the  nature  of  things,  that  the 
States,  being  parties,  must  judge  for 
themselves. 

I  have  admitted,  that,  if  the  Consti 
tution  were  to  be  considered  as  the  crea 
ture  of  the  State  governments,  it  might 
be  modified,  interpreted,  or  construed 
according  to  their  pleasure.  But,  even 
in  that  case,  it  would  be  necessary  that 
they  should  agree.  One  alone  could  not 
interpret  it  conclusively ;  one  alone  could 
not  construe  it;  one  alone  could  not 
modify  it.  Yet  the  gentleman's  doctrine 
is,  that  Carolina  alone  may  construe  and 
interpret  that  compact  which  equally 
binds  all,  and  gives  equal  rights  to  all. 

So,  then,  Sir,  even  supposing  the 
Constitution  to  be  a  compact  between 
the  States,  the  gentleman's  doctrine, 
nevertheless,  is  not  maintainable;  be 
cause,  first,  the  general  government  is 
not  a  party  to  that  compact,  but  a  gov 
ernment  established  by  it,  and  vested  by 


it  with  the  powers  of  trying  and  decid 
ing  doubtful  questions;  and  secondly, 
because,  if  the  Constitution  be  regarded 
as  a  compact,  not  one  State  only,  but 
all  the  States,  are  parties  to  that  com 
pact,  and  one  can  have  no  right  to  fix 
upon  it  her  own  peculiar  construction. 

So  much,  Sir,  for  the  argument,  even 
if  the  premises  of  the  gentleman  were 
granted,  or  could  be  proved.  But,  Sir, 
the  gentleman  has  failed  to  maintain 
his  leading  proposition.  He  has  not 
shown,  it  cannot  be  shown,  that  the 
Constitution  is  a  compact  between  State 
governments.  The  Constitution  itself, 
in  its  very  front,  refutes  that  idea;  it 
declares  that  it  is  ordained  and  estab 
lished  by  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
So  far  from  saying  that  it  is  established 
by  the  governments  of  the  several  States, 
it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is  established 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States ;  but 
it  pronounces  that  it  is  established  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
aggregate.  The  gentleman  says,  it  must 
mean  no  more  than  the  people  of  the 
several  States.  Doubtless,  the  people 
of  the  several  States,  taken  collectively, 
constitute  the  people  of  the  United 
States;  but  it  is  in  this,  their  collective 
capacity,  it  is  as  all  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  that  they  establish  the 
Constitution.  So  they  declare;  and 
words  cannot  be  plainer  than  the  words 
used. 

When  the  gentleman  says  the  Consti 
tution  is  a  compact  between  the  States, 
he  uses  language  exactly  applicable  to 
the  old  Confederation.  He  speaks  as  if 
he  were  in  Congress  before  1789.  He 
describes  fully  that  old  state  of  things 
then  existing.  The  Confederation  was, 
in  strictness,  a  compact;  the  States,  as 
States,  were  parties  to  it.  We  had  no 
other  general  government.  But  that 
was  found  insufficient,  and  inadequate 
to  the  public  exigencies.  The  people 
were  not  satisfied  with  it,  and  undertook 
to  establish  a  better.  They  undertook 
to  form  a  general  government,  which 
should  stand  on  a  new  basis ;  not  a  con 
federacy,  not  a  league,  not  a  compact 
between  States,  but  a  Constitution;  a 
popular  government,  founded  in  popular 


272 


THE  REPLY  TO   HAYNE. 


election,  directly  responsible  to  the  peo 
ple  themselves,  and  divided  into  branches 
with  prescribed  limits  of  power,  and  pre 
scribed  duties.  They  ordained  such  a 
government,  they  gave  it  the  name  of 
a  Constitution,  and  therein  they  estab 
lished  a  distribution  of  powers  between 
this,  their  general  government,  and  their 
several  State  governments.  When  they 
shall  become  dissatisfied  with  this  dis 
tribution,  they  can  alter  it.  Their  own 
power  over  their  own  instrument  re 
mains.  But  until  they  shall  alter  it,  it 
must  stand  as  their  will,  and  is  equally 
binding  on  the  general  government  and 
on  the  States. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  finds  analogy 
where  I  see  none.  He  likens  it  to  the 
case  of  a  treaty,  in  which,  there  being 
no  common  superior,  each  party  must 
interpret  for  itself,  under  its  own  obli 
gation  of  good  faith.  But  this  is  not  a 
treaty,  but  a  constitution  of  govern 
ment,  with  powers  to  execute  itself,  and 
fulfil  its  duties. 

I  admit,  Sir,  that  this  government  is 
a  government  of  checks  and  balances; 
that  is,  the  House  of  Representatives  is  a 
check  on  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  a 
check  on  the  House,  and  the  President 
a  check  on  both.  But  I  cannot  compre- 


hend  him,  or,  if  I  do,  I  totally  differ 
from  him,  when  he  applies  the  notion 
of  checks  and  balances  to  the  inter 
ference  of  different  governments.  He 
argued,  that,  if  we  transgress  our  con 
stitutional  limits,  each  State,  as  a  State, 
has  a  right  to  check  us.  Does  he  admit 
the  converse  of  the  proposition,  that  we 
have  a  right  to  check  the  States  V  The 
gentleman's  doctrines  would  give  us  a 
strange  jumble  of  authorities  and  pow 
ers,  instead  of  governments  of  separate 
and  defined  powers.  It  is  the  part  of 
wisdom,  I  think,  to  avoid  this;  and  to 
keep  the  general  government  and  the 
State  government  each  in  its  proper 
sphere,  avoiding  as  carefully  as  possible 
every  kind  of  interference. 

Finally,  Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman 
says,  that  the  States  will  only  interfere, 
by  their  power,  to  preserve  the  Constitu 
tion.  They  will  not  destroy  it,  they 
will  not  impair  it;  they  will  only  save, 
they  will  only  preserve,  they  will  only 
strengthen  it  !  Ah  !  Sir,  this  is  but  the 
old  story.  All  regulated  governments, 
all  free  governments,  have  been  broken 
by  similar  disinterested  and  well-dis 
posed  interference.  It  is  the  common 
pretence.  But  I  take  leave  of  the  sub 
ject. 


THE    CONSTITUTION    NOT    A   COMPACT    BETWEEN 
SOVEREIGN   STATES. 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE 
16TH  OF  FEBRUARY,  1833,  IN  REPLY  TO  MR  CALHOUN'S  SPEECH  ON  THE 
BILL  "FURTHER  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  COLLECTION  OF  DUTIES  ON  IM 
PORTS." 


[ON  the  21st  of  January,  1833,  Mr.  Wil- 
kins,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee 
of  the  Senate,  introduced  the  bill  further  to 
provide  for  the  collection  of  duties.  On  the 
22d  day  of  the  same  month,  Mr.  Calhoun 
submitted  the  following  resolutions  :  — 

"Resolved,  That  the  people,  of  the  several 
States  composing  these  United  States  are  united 
as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact,  to  which 
the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate 
sovereign  community,  each  binding  itself  by  its 
own  particular  ratification;  and  that  the  union, 
of  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  union 
between  the  States  ratifying  the  same. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several 
States  thus  united  by  the  constitutional  com 
pact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  and  in  creat 
ing  a  general  government  to  carry  into  effect 
the  objects  for  which  they  were  formed,  dele 
gated  to  that  government,  for  that  purpose,  cer 
tain  definite  powers,  to  be  exercised  jointly, 
reserving,  at  the  same  time,  each  State  to  itself, 
the  residuary  mass  of  powers,  to  be  exercised  by 
its  own  separate  government;  and  that  when 
ever  the  general  government  assumes  the  exer 
cise  of  powers  not  delegated  by  the  compact,  its 
acts  are  unauthorized,  and  are  of  no  effect;  and 
that  the  same  government  is  not  made  the  final 
judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that 
would  make  its  discretion,  and  not  the  Consti 
tution,  the  measure  of  its  powers;  but  that,  as 
in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign 
parties,  without  any  common  judge,  each  has 
an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  the 
infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

"Resolved,  That  the  assertions,  that  the  peo 
ple  of  these  United  States,  taken  collectively  as 
individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have  been,  united  on 
the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such, 
are  now  formed  into  one  nation  or  people,  or 
that  they  have  ever  been  so  united  in  anv  one 
stage  of  their  political  existence;  that  the  peo 
ple  of  the  several  States  composing  the  Union 
nave  not,  as  members  thereof,  retained  their  sov 
ereignty;  that  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens 
has  been  transferred  to  the  general  govern 
ment;  that  they  have  parted  with  the  right  of 
punishing  treason  through  their  respective  State 
governments;  and  that  they  have  not  the  right 
of  judging  in  the  last  resort  as  to  the  extent  of 


18 


the  powers  reserved,  and  of  consequence  of 
those  delegated,  —  are  not  only  M'ithout  founda 
tion  in  truth,  but  are  contrary  to  the  most  cer 
tain  and  plain  historical  facts,  and  the  clearest 
deductions  of  reason ;  and  that  all  exercise  of 
power  on  the  part  of  the  general  government,  or 
any  of  its  departments,  claiming  authority  from 
such  erroneous  assumptions,  must  of  necessity 
be  unconstitutional. — must  tend,  directly  and 
inevitably,  to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States,  to  destroy  the  federal  character  of  the 
Union,  and  to  rear  on  its  ruins  a  consolidated 
government,  without  constitutional  check  or  lim 
itation,  and  which  must  necessarily  terminate  in 
the  loss  of  liberty  itself." 

On  Saturday,  the  16th  of  February,  Mr. 
Calhoun  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  and 
in  support  of  these  resolutions.  He  was 
followed  by  Mr.  Webster  in  this  speech.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  has  admonished 
us  to  be  mindful  of  the  opinions  of 
those  who  shall  come  after  us.  We 
must  take  our  chance,  Sir,  as  to  the 
light  in  which  posterity  will  regard  us. 
I  do  not  decline  its  judgment,  nor  with 
hold  myself  from  its  scrutiny.  Feeling 
that  I  am  performing  my  public  duty 
with  singleness  of  heart  and  to  the  best 
of  my  ability,  I  fearlessly  trust  myself 
to  the  country,  now  and  hereafter,  and 
leave  both  my  motives  and  my  character 
to  its  decision. 

The  gentleman  has  terminated  his 
speech  in  a  tone  of  threat  and  defiance 
towards  this  bill,  even  should  it  become 
a  law  of  the  land,  altogether  unusual  in 
the  halls  of  Congress.  But  I  shall  not 
suffer  myself  to  be  excited  into  warmth 
by  his  denunciation  of  the  measure  which 
I  support.  Among  the  feelings  which 


274 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 


at  this  moment  fill  my  breast,  not  the 
least  is  that  of  regret  at  the  position  in 
which  the  gentleman  has  placed  himself. 
Sir,  he  does  himself  no  justice.  The 
cause  which  he  has  espoused  finds  no 
basis  in  the  Constitution,  no  succor  from 
public  sympathy,  no  cheering  from  a 
patriotic  community.  He  has  no  foot 
hold  on  which  to  stand  while  he  might 
display  the  powers  of  his  acknowledged 
talents.  Every  thing  beneath  his  feet 
is  hollow  and  treacherous.  He  is  like 
a  strong  man  struggling  in  a  morass: 
every  effort  to  extricate  himself  only 
sinks  him  deeper  and  deeper.  And  I 
fear  the  resemblance  may  be  carried 
still  farther;  I  fear  that  no  friend  can 
safely  come  to  his  relief,  that  no  one  can 
approach  near  enough  to  hold  out  a  help 
ing  hand,  without  danger  of  going  down 
himself,  also,  into  the  bottomless  depths 
of  this  Serbonian  bog. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  de 
clared,  that  on  the  decision  of  the  ques 
tion  now  in  debate  may  depend  the 
cause  of  liberty  itself.  I  am  of  the  same 
opinion;  but  then,  Sir,  the  liberty  which 
I  think  is  staked  on  the  contest  is  not 
political  liberty,  in  any  general  and  un 
defined  character,  but  our  own  well- 
understood  and  long-enjoyed  American 
liberty. 

Sir,  I  love  Liberty  no  less  ardently 
than  the  gentleman  himself,  in  whatever 
form  she  may  have  appeared  in  the 
progress  of  human  history.  As  exhib 
ited  in  the  master  states  of  antiquity, 
as  breaking  out  again  from  amidst  the 
darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  beam 
ing  on  the  formation  of  new  communi 
ties  in  modern  Europe,  she  has,  always 
and  everywhere,  charms  for  me.  Yet, 
Sir,  it  is  our  own  liberty,  guarded  by 
constitutions  and  secured  by  union,  it  is 
that  liberty  which  is  our  paternal  inher 
itance,  it  is  our  established,  dear-bought, 
peculiar  American  liberty,  to  which  I 
am  chiefly  devoted,  and  the  cause  of 
which  I  now  mean,  to  the  utmost  of  my 
power,  to  maintain  and  defend. 

Mr.  President,  if  I  considered  the  con 
stitutional  question  now  before  us  as 
doubtful  as  it  is  important,  and  if  I  sup 
posed  that  its  decision,  either  in  the 


Senate  or  by  the  country,  was  likely  to 
be  in  any  degree  influenced  by  the  man 
ner  in  which  I  might  now  discuss  it,  this 
would  be  to  me  a  moment  of  deep  solici 
tude.  Such  a  moment  has  once  existed. 
There  has  been  a  time,  when,  rising  in 
this  place,  on  the  same  question,  I  felt, 
I  must  confess,  that  something  for  good 
or  evil  1*>  the  Constitution  of  the  coun 
try  might  depend  on  an  effort  of  mine. 
But  circumstances  are  changed.  Since 
that  day,  Sir,  the  public  opinion  has  be 
come  awakened  to  this  great  question; 
it  has  grasped  it ;  it  has  reasoned  upon  it, 
as  becomes  an  intelligent  and  patriotic 
community,  and  has  settled  it,  or  now 
seems  in  the  progress  of  settling  it,  by 
an  authority  which  none  can  disobey, 
the  authority  of  the  people  themselves. 

I  shall  not,  Mr.  President,  follow  the 
gentleman,  step  by  step,  through  the 
course  of  his  speech.  Much  of  what  he 
has  said  he  has  deemed  necessary  to  the 
just  explanation  and  defence  of  his  own 
political  character  and  conduct.  On  this 
I  shall  offer  no  comment.  Much,  too, 
has  consisted  of  philosophical  remark 
upon  the  general  nature  of  political  lib 
erty,  and  the  history  of  free  institutions ; 
and  upon  other  topics,  so  general  in 
their  nature  as  to  possess,  in  my  opinion, 
only  a  remote  bearing  on  the  immediate 
subject  of  this  debate. 

But  the  gentleman's  speech  made 
some  days  ago,  upon  introducing  his 
resolutions,  those  resolutions  them 
selves,  and  parts  of  the  speech  now  just 
concluded,  may,  I  presume,  be  justly  re 
garded  as  containing  the  whole  South 
Carolina  doctrine.  That  doctrine  it  is 
'my  purpose  now  to  examine,  and  to 
compare  it  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  shall  not  consent,  Sir, 
to  make  any  new  constitution,  or  to 
establish  another  form  of  government. 
I  will  not  undertake  to  say  what  a  con 
stitution  for  these  United  States  ought 
to  be.  That  question  the  people  have 
decided  for  themselves ;  and  I  shall  take 
the  instrument  as  they  have  established 
it,  and  shall  endeavor  to  maintain  it,  in 
its  plain  sense  and  meaning,  against 
opinions  and  notions  which,  in  my  judg 
ment,  threaten  its  subversion. 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


275 


The  resolutions  introduced  by  the  gen 
tleman  were  apparently  drawn  up  with 
care,  and  brought  forward  upon  deliber 
ation.  I  shall  not  be  in  danger,  there 
fore,  of  misunderstanding  him,  or  those 
who  agree  with  him,  if  I  proceed  at 
once  to  these  resolutions,  and  consider 
them  as  an  authentic  statement  of  those 
opinions  upon  the  great  constitutional 
question  by  which  the  recent  proceed 
ings  in  South  Carolina  are  attempted  to 
be  justified. 

These  resolutions  are  three  in  num 
ber. 

The  third  seems  intended  to  enumer 
ate,  and  to  deny,  the  several  opinions 
expressed  in  the  President's  proclama 
tion,  respecting  the  nature  and  powers 
of  this  government.  Of  this  third  reso 
lution,  I  purpose,  at  present,  to  take  no 
particular  notice. 

The  first  two  resolutions  of  the  honor 
able  member  affirm  these  propositions, 


1.  That    the   political   system   under 
which  we  live,  and  under  which  Con 
gress  is  now  assembled,  is  a  compact,  to 
which  the  people  of  the  several  States, 
as  separate  and  sovereign  communities, 
are  the  parties. 

2.  That  these  sovereign  parties  have 
a  right  to  judge,  each  for  itself,  of  any 
alleged  violation  of  the  Constitution  by 
Congress;    and,  in  case  of   such  viola 
tion,  to  choose,  each  for  itself,  its  own 
mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

It  is  true,  Sir,  that  the  honorable 
member  calls  this  a  "constitutional" 
compact;  but  still  he  affirms  it  to  be 
a  compact  between  sovereign  States. 
What  precise  meaning,  then,  does  he 
attach  to  the  term  constitutional  f  When 
applied  to  compacts  between  sovereign 
States,  the  term  constitutional  affixes  to 
the  word  compact  no  definite  idea.  Were 
we  to  hear  of  a  constitutional  league  or 
treaty  between  England  and  France,  or 
a  constitutional  convention  between  Aus 
tria  and  Russia,  we  should  not  under 
stand  what  could  be  intended  by  such  a 
league,  such  a  treaty,  or  such  a  conven 
tion.  In  these  connections,  the  word  is 
void  of  all  meaning;  and  yet,  Sir,  it  is 
easy,  quite  easy,  to  see  why  the  honor 


able  gentleman  has  used  it  in  these  reso 
lutions.  He  cannot  open  the  book,  and 
look  upon  our  written  frame  of  govern 
ment,  without  seeing  that  it  is  called  a 
constitution.  This  may  well  be  appalling 
to  him.  It  threatens  his  whole  doctrine 
of  compact,  and  its  darling  derivatives, 
nullification  and  secession,  with  instant 
confutation.  Because,  if  he  admits  our 
instrument  of  government  to  be  a  con 
stitution^  then,  for  that  very  reason,  it  is 
not  a  compact  between  sovereigns;  a 
constitution  of  government  and  a  com 
pact  between  sovereign  powers  being 
things  essentially  unlike  in  their  very 
natures,  and  incapable  of  ever  being  the 
same.  Yet  the  word  constitution  is  on 
the  very  front  of  the  instrument.  He 
cannot  overlook  it.  He  seeks,  therefore, 
to  compromise  the  matter,  and  to  sink 
all  the  substantial  sense  of  the  word, 
while  he  retains  a  resemblance  of  its 
sound.  He  introduces  a  new  word  of 
his  own,  viz.  compact,  as  importing  the 
principal  idea,  and  designed  to  play  the 
principal  part,  and  degrades  constitution 
into  an  insignificant,  idle  epithet,  at 
tached  to  compact.  The  whole  then 
stands  as  a  "constitutional  compact"! 
And  in  this  way  he  hopes  to  pass  off  a 
plausible  gloss,  as  satisfying  the  words 
of  the  instrument.  But  he  will  find 
himself  disappointed.  Sir,  I  must  say 
to  the  honorable  gentleman,  that,  in  our 
American  political  grammar,  COXSTITI^- 
TIOX  is  a  noun  substantive ;  it  imports  a 
distinct  and  clear  idea  of  itself;  and  it 
is  not  to  lose  its  importance  and  dignity, 
it  is  not  to  be  turned  into  a  poor,  am 
biguous,  senseless,  unmeaning  adjective, 
for  the  purpose  of  accommodating  any 
new  set  of  political  notions.  Sir,  we 
reject  his  new  rules  of  syntax  altogether. 
We  will  not  give  up  our  forms  of  politi 
cal  speech  to  the  grammarians  of  the 
school  of  nullification.  By  the  Consti 
tution,  we  mean,  not  a  "constitutional 
compact,"  but,  simply  and  directly,  the 
Constitution ^  the  fundamental  lawj  and 
if  there  be  one  word  in  the  language 
which  the  people  of  the  United  States 
understand,  this  is  that  word.  We  know 
no  more  of  a  constitutional  compact  be 
tween  sovereign  powers,  than  we  know 


276 


THE    CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


of  a  constitutional  indenture  of  copart 
nership,  a  constitutional  deed  of  convey 
ance,  or  a  constitutional  bill  of  exchange. 
But  we  know  what  the  Constitution  is; 
we  know  what  the  plainly  written  funda 
mental  law  is ;  we  know  what  the  bond 
of  our  Union  and  the  security  of  our 
liberties  is;  and  we  mean  to  maintain 
and  to  defend  it,  in  its  plain  sense  and 
unsophisticated  meaning. 

The  sense  of  the  gentleman's  proposi 
tion,  therefore,  is  not  at  all  affected,  one 
way  or  the  other,  by  the  use  of  this 
word.  That  proposition  still  is,  that 
our  system  of  government  is  but  a  com 
pact  between  the  people  of  separate  and 
sovereign  States. 

Was  it  Mirabeau,  Mr.  President,  or 
some  other  master  of  the  human  pas 
sions,  who  has  told  us  that  words  are 
things?  They  are  indeed  things,  and 
things  of  mighty  influence,  not  only  in 
addresses  to  the  passions  and  high- 
wrought  feelings  of  mankind,  but  in 
the  discussion  of  legal  and  political 
questions  also;  because  a  just  conclu 
sion  is  often  avoided,  or  a  false  one 
reached,  by  the  adroit  substitution  of 
one  phrase,  or  one  word,  for  another. 
Of  this  we  have,  I  think,  another  ex 
ample  in  the  resolutions  before  us. 

The  first  resolution  declares  that  the 
people  of  the  several  States  "  acceded  " 
to  the  Constitution,  or  to  the  constitu 
tional  compact,  as  it  is  called.  This 
word  "  accede,"  not  found  either  in  the 
Constitution  itself,  or  in  the  ratification 
of  it  by  any  one  of  the  States,  has  been 
chosen  for  use  here,  doubtless,  not  with 
out  a  well-considered  purpose. 

The  natural  converse  of  accession  is 
secession ;  and,  therefore,  when  it  is 
stated  that  the  people  of  the  States  ac 
ceded  to  the  Union,  it  may  be  more 
plausibly  argued  that  they  may  secede 
from  it.  If,  in  adopting  the  Constitu 
tion,  nothing  was  done  but  acceding  to 
a  compact,  nothing  would  seem  neces 
sary,  in  order  to  break  it  up,  but  to 
secede  from  the  same  compact.  But 
the  term  is  wholly  out  of  place.  Ac 
cession,  as  a  word  applied  to  political 
associations,  implies  coming  into  a 
league,  treaty,  or  confederacy,  by  one 


hitherto  a  stranger  to  it;  and  secession 
implies  departing  from  such  league  or 
confederacy.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  used  no  such  form  of  ex 
pression  in  establishing  the  present  gov 
ernment.  They  do  not  say  that  they 
accede  to  a  league,  but  they  declare  that 
they  ordain  and  establish  a  Constitution. 
Such  are  the  very  words  of  the  instru 
ment  itself;  and  in  all  the  States,  with 
out  an  exception,  the  language  used  by 
their  conventions  was,  that  they  "rati 
fied  the  Constitution";  some  of  them 
employing  the  additional  words  "  as 
sented  to"  and  "  adopted,"  but  all  of 
them  "ratifying." 

There  is  more  importance  than  may, 
at  first  sight,  appear,  in  the  introduc 
tion  of  this  new  word,  by  the  honorable 
mover  of  these  resolutions.  Its  adop 
tion  and  use  are  indispensable  to  main 
tain  those  premises  from  which  his  main 
conclusion  is  to  be  afterwards  drawn. 
But  before  showing  that,  allow  me  to 
remark,  that  this  phraseology  tends  to 
keep  out  of  sight  the  just  view  of  a  pre 
vious  political  history,  as  well  as  to  sug 
gest  wrong  ideas  as  to  what  was  actually 
done  when  the  present  Constitution  was 
agreed  to.  In  1789,  and  before  this  Con 
stitution  was  adopted,  the  United  States 
had  already  been  in  a  union,  more  or 
less  close,  for  fifteen  years.  At  least  as 
far  back  as  the  meeting  of  the  first 
Congress,  in  1774,  they  had  been  in 
some  measure,  and  for  some  national 
purposes,  united  together.  Before  the 
Confederation  of  1781,  they  had  de 
clared  independence  jointly,  and  had 
carried  on  the  war  jointly,  both  by  sea 
and  land ;  and  this  not  as  separate  States, 
but  as  one  people.  When,  therefore, 
they  formed  that  Confederation,  and 
adopted  its  articles  as  articles  of  per 
petual  union,  they  did  not  come  together 
for  the  first  time;  and  therefore  they 
did  not  speak  of  the  States  as  acceding 
to  the  Confederation,  although  it  was  a 
league,  and  nothing  but  a  league,  and 
rested  on  nothing  but  plighted  faith  for 
its  performance.  Yet,  even  then,  the 
States  were  not  strangers  to  each  other; 
there  was  a  bond  of  union  already  sub 
sisting  between  them ;  they  were  associ- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


277 


ated,  united  States ;  and  the  object  of  the 
Confederation  was  to  make  a  stronger 
and  better  bond  of  union.  Their  repre 
sentatives  deliberated  together  on  these 
proposed  Articles  of  Confederation,  and, 
being  authorized  by  their  respective 
States,  finally  "  ratified  and  confirmed" 
them.  Inasmuch  as  they  were  already 
in  union,  they  did  not  speak  of  acceding 
to  the  new  Articles  of  Confederation, 
but  of  ratifying  and  confirming  them; 
and  this  language  was  not  used  inad 
vertently,  because,  in  the  same  instru 
ment,  accession  is  used  in  its  proper 
sense,  when  applied  to  Canada,  which 
was  altogether  a  stranger  to  the  existing 
union.  "Canada,"  says  the  eleventh 
article,  "  acceding  to  this  Confedera 
tion,  and  joining  in  the  measures  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union." 

Having  thus  used  the  terms  ratify  and 
confirm,  even  in  regard  to  the  old  Con 
federation,  it  would  have  been  strange 
indeed,  if  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  after  its  formation,  and  when 
they  came  to  establish  the  present  Con 
stitution,  had  spoken  of  the  States,  or 
the  people  of  the  States,  as  acceding 
to  this  Constitution.  Such  language 
would  have  been  ill-suited  to  the  oc 
casion.  It  would  have  implied  an  ex 
isting  separation  or  disunion  among 
the  States,  such  as  never  has  existed 
since  1774.  No  such  language,  there 
fore,  was  used.  The  language  actually 
employed  is,  adopt,  ratify,  ordain,  es 
tablish. 

Therefore,  Sir,  since  any  State,  before 
she  can  prove  her  right  to  dissolve  the 
Union,  must  show  her  authority  to  undo 
what  has  been  done,  no  State  is  at  lib 
erty  to  secede,  on  the  ground  that  she 
and  other  States  have  done  nothing  but 
accede.  She  must  show  that  she  has  a 
right  to  reverse  what  has  been  ordained, 
to  unsettle  and  overthrow  what  has  been 
established,  to  reject  what  the  people 
have  adopted,  and  to  break  up  what  they 
have  ratified;  because  these  are  the 
terms  which  express  the  transactions 
which  have  actually  taken  place.  In 
other  words,  she  must  show  her  right  to 
make  a  revolution. 


If,  Mr.  President,  in  drawing  these 
resolutions,  the  honorable  member  had 
confined  himself  to  the  use  of  constitu 
tional  language,  there  would  have  been 
a  wide  and  awful  hiatus  between  his 
premises  and  his  conclusion.  Leaving 
out  the  two  words  compact  and  accession, 
which  are  not  constitutional  modes  of 
expression,  and  stating  the  matter  pre 
cisely  as  the  truth  is,  his  first  resolution 
would  have  affirmed  that  the  people  of 
the  several  States  ratified  this  Constitution, 
or  form  of  government.  These  are  the 
very  words  of  South  Carolina  herself,  in 
her  act  of  ratification.  Let,  then,  his 
first  resolution  tell  the  exact  truth;  let 
it  state  the  fact  precisely  as  it  exists; 
let  it  say  that  the  people  of  the  several 
States  ratified  a  constitution,  or  form  of 
government,  and  then,  Sir,  what  will 
become  of  his  inference  in  his  second 
resolution,  which  is  in  these  words,  viz. 
"that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact 
among  sovereign  parties,  each  has  an 
equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of 
the  infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  meas 
ure  of  redress"?  It  is  obvious,  is  it 
not,  Sir?  that  this  conclusion  requires 
for  its  support  quite  other  premises;  it 
requires  premises  which  speak  of  acces 
sion  and  of  compact  between  sovereign 
powers;  and,  without  such  premises,  it 
is  altogether  unmeaning. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  honorable  mem 
ber  will  truly  state  what  the  people  did 
in  forming  this  Constitution,  and  then 
state  what  they  must  do  if  they  would 
now  undo  what  they  then  did,  he  will 
unavoidably  state  a  case  of  revolution. 
Let  us  see  if  it  be  not  so.  He  must 
state,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  people 
of  the  several  States  adopted  and  rati 
fied  this  Constitution,  or  form  of  gov 
ernment;  and,  in  the  next  place,  he 
must  state  that  they  have  a  right  to 
undo  this;  that  is  to  say,  that  they  have 
a  right  to  discard  the  form  of  govern 
ment  which  they  have  adopted,  and  to 
break  up  the  Constitution  which  they 
have  ratified.  Now,  Sir,  this  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  saying  that  they  have 
a  right  to  make  a  revolution.  To  reject 
an  established  government,  to  break  up 
a  political  constitution,  is  revolution. 


278 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


I  deny  that  any  man  can  state  accu 
rately  what  was  done  by  the  people,  in 
establishing  the  present  Constitution, 
and  then  state  accurately  what  the 
people,  or  any  part  of  them,  must  now 
do  to  get  rid  of  its  obligations,  without 
stating  an  undeniable  case  of  the  over 
throw  of  government.  I  admit,  of 
course,  that  the  people  may,  if  they 
choose,  overthrow  the  government.  But, 
then,  that  is  revolution.  The  doctrine 
now  contended  for  is,  that,  by  nullifica 
tion,  or  secession,  the  obligations  and 
authority  of  the  government  may  be  set 
aside  or  rejected,  without  revolution. 
But  that  is  what  I  deny;  and  what  I  say 
is,  that  no  man  can  state  the  case  with 
historical  accuracy,  and  in  constitutional 
language,  without  showing  that  the 
honorable  gentleman's  right,  as  asserted 
in  his  conclusion,  is  a  revolutionary 
right  merely;  that  it  does  not  and  can 
not  exist  under  the  Constitution,  or 
agreeably  to  the  Constitution,  but  can 
come  into  existence  only  when  the  Con 
stitution  is  overthrown.  This  is  the 
reason,  Sir,  which  makes  it  necessary  to 
abandon  the  use  of  constitutional  lan 
guage  for  a  new  vocabulary,  and  to  sub 
stitute,  in  the  place  of  plain  historical 
facts,  a  series  of  assumptions.  This  is 
the  reason  why  it  is  necessary  to  give 
new  names  to  things,  to  speak  of  the 
Constitution,  not  as  a  constitution,  but 
as  a  compact,  and  of  the  ratifications  by 
the  people,  not  as  ratifications,  but  as 
acts  of  accession. 

Sir,  I  intend  to  hold  the  gentleman  to 
the  written  record.  In  the  discussion 
of  a  constitutional  question,  I  intend  to 
impose  upon  him  the  restraints  of  con 
stitutional  language.  The  people  have 
ordained  a  Constitution;  can  they  reject 
it  without  revolution?  They  have  es 
tablished  a  form  of  government;  can 
they  overthrow  it  without  revolution? 
These  are  the  true  questions. 

Allow  me  now,  Mr.  President,  to  in 
quire  further  into  the  extent  of  the 
propositions  contained  in  the  resolutions, 
and  their  necessary  consequences. 

Where  sovereign  communities  are  par 
ties,  there  is  no  essential  difference 
between  a  compact,  a  confederation,  and 


a  league.  They  all  equally  rest  on  the 
plighted  faith  of  the  sovereign  party. 
A  league,  or  confederacy,  is  but  a  sub 
sisting  or  continuing  treaty. 

The  gentleman's  resolutions,  then, 
affirm,  in  effect,  that  these  twenty-four 
United  States  are  held  together  only  by 
a  subsisting  treaty,  resting  for  its  fulfil 
ment  and  continuance  on  no  inherent 
power  of  its  own,  but  on  the  plighted 
faith  of  each  State  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  our  Union  is  but  a  league ;  and,  as 
a  consequence  from  this  proposition, 
they  further  affirm  that,  as  sovereigns 
are  subject  to  no  superior  power,  the 
States  nrust  judge,  each  for  itself,  of 
any  alleged  violation  of  the  league ;  and 
if  such  violation  be  supposed  to  have 
occurred,  each  may  adopt  any  mode  or 
measure  of  redress  which  it  shall  think 
proper. 

Other  consequences  naturally  follow, 
too,  from  the  main  proposition.  If  a 
league  between  sovereign  powers  have 
no  limitation  as  to  the  time  of  its  dura 
tion,  and  contain  nothing  making  it 
perpetual,  it  subsists  only  during  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  parties,  although 
no  violation  be  complained  of.  If,  in 
the  opinion  of  either  party,  it  be  vio 
lated,  such  party  may  say  that  he  will 
no  longer  fulfil  its  obligations  on  his 
part,  but  will  consider  the  whole  league 
or  compact  at  an  end,  although  it  might 
be  one  of  its  stipulations  that  it  should 
be  perpetual.  Upon  this  principle,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  1798, 
declared  null  and  void  the  treaty  of  alli 
ance  between  the  United  States  and 
France,  though  it  professed  to  be  a  per 
petual  alliance. 

If  the  violation  of  the  league  be  ac 
companied  with  serious  injuries,  the 
suffering  party,  being  sole  judge  of  his 
own  mode  and  measure  of  redress,  has 
a  right  to  indemnify  himself  by  reprisals 
on  the  offending  members  of  the  league; 
and  reprisals,  if  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  require  it,  may  be  followed  by  direct, 
avowed,  and  public  war. 

The  necessary  import  of  the  resolu 
tion,  therefore,  is,  that  the  United 
States  are  connected  only  by  a  league  ; 
that  it  is  in  the  good  pleasure  of  every 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


279 


State  to  decide  how  long  she  will  choose 
to  remain  a  member  of  this  league ;  that 
any  State  may  determine  the  extent  of 
her  own  obligations  under  it,  and  accept 
or  reject  what  shall  be  decided  by  the 
whole;  that  she  may  also  determine 
whether  her  rights  have  been  violated, 
what  is  the  extent  of  the  injury  done 
her,  and  what  mode  and  measure  of 
redress  her  wrongs  may  make  it  fit  and 
expedient  for  her  to  adopt.  The  result 
of  the  whole  is,  that  any  State  may 
secede  at  pleasure ;  that  any  State  may 
resist  a  law  which  she  herself  may 
choose  to  say  exceeds  the  power  of  Con 
gress;  and  that,  as  a  sovereign  power, 
she  may  redress  her  own  grievances,  by 
her  own  arm,  at  her  own  discretion. 
She  may  make  reprisals ;  she  may  cruise 
against  the  property  of  other  members 
of  the  league;  she  may  authorize  cap 
tures,  and  make  open  war. 

If,  Sir,  this  be  our  political  condition, 
it  is  time  the  people  of  the  United  States 
understood  it.  Let  us  look  for  a  mo 
ment  to  the  practical  consequences  of 
these  opinions.  One  State,  holding  an 
embargo  law  unconstitutional,  may  de 
clare  her  opinion,  and  withdraw  from 
the  Union.  She  secedes.  Another, 
forming  and  expressing  the  same  judg 
ment. on  a  law  laying  duties  on  imports, 
may  withdraw  also.  She  secedes.  And 
as,  in  her  opinion,  money  has  been  taken 
out  of  the  pockets  of  her  citizens  ille 
gally,  under  pretence  of  this  law,  and  as 
she  has  power  to  redress  their  wrongs, 
she  may  demand  satisfaction ;  and,  if 
refused,  she  may  take  it  with  a  strong 
hand.  The  gentleman  has  himself  pro 
nounced  the  collection  of  duties,  under 
existing  laws,  to  be  nothing  but  robbery. 
Robbers,  of  course,  may  be  rightfully 
dispossessed  of  the  fruits  of  their  flagi 
tious  crimes;  and  therefore,  reprisals, 
impositions  on  the  commerce  of  other 
States,  foreign  alliances  against  them, 
or  open  war,  are  all  modes  of  redress 
justly  open  to  the  discretion  and  choice 
of  South  Carolina;  for  she  is  to  judge  of 
her  own  rights,  and  to  seek  satisfaction 
for  her  own  wrongs,  in  her  own  way. 

But,  Sir,  a  third  State  is  of  opinion, 
not  only  that  these  laws  of  imposts  are 


constitutional,  but  that  it  is  the  absolute 
duty  of  Congress  to  pass  and  to  main 
tain  such  laws;  and  that,  by  omitting 
to  pass  and  maintain  them,  its  con 
stitutional  obligations  would  be  grossly 
disregarded.  She  herself  relinquished 
the  power  of  protection,  she  might 
allege,  and  allege  truly,  and  gave  it 
up  to  Congress,  on  the  faith  that  Con 
gress  would  exercise  it.  If  Congress 
now  refuse  to  exercise  it,  Congress  does, 
as  she  may  insist,  break  the  condition  of 
the  grant,  and  thus  manifestly  violate 
the  Constitution ;  and  for  this  violation 
of  the  Constitution,  she  may  threaten 
to  secede  also.  Virginia  may  secede, 
and  hold  the  fortresses  in  the  Chesa 
peake.  The  Western  States  may  secede, 
and  take  to  their  own  use  the  public 
lands.  Louisiana  may  secede,  if  she 
choose,  form  a  foreign  alliance,  and  hold 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  If  one 
State  may  secede,  ten  may  do  so,  twenty 
may  do  so,  twenty-three  may  do  so. 
Sir,  as  these  secessions  go  on,  one  after 
another,  what  is  to  constitute  the  Unit 
ed  States  ?  Whose  will  be  the  army  ? 
Whose  the  navy?  Who  will  pay  the 
debts?  Who  fulfil  the  public  treaties? 
Who  perform  the  constitutional  guaran 
ties?  Who  govern  this  District  and  the 
Territories?  Who  retain  the  public 
property? 

Mr.  President,  every  man  must  see 
that  these  are  all  questions  which  can 
arise  only  after  a  revolution.  They  pre 
suppose  the  breaking  up  of  the  govern 
ment.  While  the  Constitution  lasts, 
they  are  repressed ;  they  spring  up  to  an 
noy  and  startle  us  only  from  its  grave. 

The  Constitution  does  not  provide  for 
events  which  must  be  preceded  by  its 
own  destruction.  SECESSION,  therefore, 
since  it  must  bring  these  consequences 
with  it,  is  REVOLUTIONARY,  and  NULLI 
FICATION  is  equally  REVOLUTIONARY. 
What  is  revolution?  Why,  Sir,  that  is 
revolution  wrhich  overturns,  or  controls, 
or  successfully  resists,  the  existing  pub 
lic  authority;  that  which  arrests  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  supreme  power ;  that  which 
introduces  a  new  paramount  authority 
into  the  rule  of  the  State.  Xow,  Sir, 
this  is  the  precise  object  of  nullification. 


280 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


It  attempts  to  supersede  the  supreme 
legislative  authority.  It  arrests  the  arm 
of  the  executive  magistrate.  It  inter 
rupts  the  exercise  of  the  accustomed 
judicial  power.  Under  the  name  of  an 
ordinance,  it  declares  null  and  void, 
within  the  State,  all  the  revenue  laws  of 
the  United  States.  Is  not  this  revolu 
tionary?  Sir,  so  soon  as  this  ordinance 
shall  be  carried  into  effect,  a  revolution 
will  have  commenced  in  South  Carolina. 
She  will  have  thrown  off  the  authority 
to  which  her  citizens  have  heretofore 
been  subject.  She  will  have  declared 
her  own  opinions  and  her  own  will  to  be 
above  the  laws  and  above  the  power  of 
those  who  are  intrusted  with  their  ad 
ministration.  If  she  makes  good  these 
declarations,  she  is  revolutionized.  As 
to  her,  it  is  as  distinctly  a  change  of  the 
supreme  power  as  the  American  Revo 
lution  of  1776.  That  revolution  did  not 
subvert  government  in  all  its  forms.  It 
did  not  subvert  local  laws  and  muni 
cipal  administrations.  It  only  threw  off 
the  dominion  of  a  power  claiming  to  be 
superior,  and  to  have  a  right,  in  many 
important  respects,  to  exercise  legisla 
tive  authority.  Thinking  this  authority 
to  have  been  usurped  or  abused,  the 
American  Colonies,  now  the  United 
States,  bade  it  defiance,  and  freed  them 
selves  from  it  by  means  of  a  revolution. 
But  that  revolution  left  them  with  their 
own  municipal  laws  still,  and  the  forms 
of  local  government.  If  Carolina  now 
shall  effectually  resist  the  laws  of  Con 
gress;  if  she  shall  be  her  own  judge, 
take  her  remedy  into  her  own  hands, 
obey  the  laws  of  the  Union  when  she 
pleases  and  disobey  them  when  she 
pleases,  she  will  relieve  herself  from  a 
paramount  power  as  distinctly  as  the 
American  Colonies  did  the  same  thing 
in  1776.  In  other  words,  she  will 
achieve,  as  to  herself,  a  revolution. 

But,  Sir,  while  practical  nullification 
in  South  Carolina  would  be,  as  to  her 
self,  actual  and  distinct  revolution,  its 
necessary  tendency  must  also  be  to 
spread  revolution,  and  to  break  up  the 
Constitution,  as  to  all  the  other  States. 
It  strikes  a  deadly  blow  at  the  vital 
principle  of  the  whole  Union.  To  allow 


State  resistance  to  the  laws  of  Congress 
to  be  rightful  and  proper,  to  admit  nulli 
fication  in  some  States,  and  yet  not  ex 
pect  to  see  a  dismemberment  of  the 
entire  government,  appears  to  me  the 
wildest  illusion,  and  the  most  extrava 
gant  folly.  The  gentleman  seems  not 
conscious  of  the  direction  or  the  rapid 
ity  of  his  own  course.  The  current 
of  his  opinions  sweeps  him  along,  he 
knows  not  whither.  To  begin  with 
nullification,  with  the  avowed  intent, 
nevertheless,  not  to  proceed  to  secession, 
dismemberment,  and  general  revolution, 
is  as  if  one  were  to  take  the  plunge  of 
Niagara,  and  cry  out  that  he  would  stop 
half-way  down.  In  the  one  case,  as  in 
the  other,  the  rash  adventurer  must  go 
to  the  bottom  of  the  dark  abyss  below, 
were  it  not  that  that  abyss  has  no  dis 
covered  bottom. 

Nullification,  if  successful,  arrests  the 
power  of  the  law,  absolves  citizens  from 
their  duty,  subverts  the  foundation  both 
of  protection  and  obedience,  dispenses 
with  oaths  and  obligations  of  allegiance, 
and  elevates  another  authority  to  su 
preme  command.  Is  not  this  revolu 
tion?  And  it  raises  to  supreme  com 
mand  four-and-twenty  distinct  powers, 
each  professing  to  be  under  a  general 
government,  and  yet  each  setting  its 
laws  at  defiance  at  pleasure.  Is  not  this 
anarchy,  as  well  as  revolution?  Sir, 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  received  as  a  whole,  and  for  the 
whole  country.  If  it  cannot  stand  alto 
gether,  it  cannot  stand  in  parts;  and  if 
the  laws  cannot  be  executed  everywhere, 
they  cannot  long  be  executed  anywhere. 
The  gentleman  very  well  knows  that  all 
duties  and  imposts  must  be  uniform 
throughout  the  country.  He  knows  that 
we  cannot  have  one  rule  or  one  law  for 
South  Carolina,  and  another  for  other 
States.  He  must  see,  therefore,  and 
does  see,  and  every  man  sees,  that  the 
only  alternative  is  a  repeal  of  the  laws 
throughout  the  whole  Union,  or  their 
execution  in  Carolina  as  well  as  else 
where.  And  this  repeal  is  demanded 
because  a  single  State  interposes  her 
veto,  and  threatens  resistance!  The 
result  of  the  gentleman's  opinion,  or 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


281 


rather  the  very  text  of  his  doctrine,  is, 
that  no  act  of  Congress  can  bind  all  the 
.States,  the  constitutionality  of  which  is 
not  admitted  by  all;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  no  single  State  is  bound,  against 
its  own  dissent,  by  a  law  of  imposts. 
This  is  precisely  the  evil  experienced 
under  the  old  Confederation,  and  for 
remedy  of  which  this  Constitution  was 
adopted.  The  leading  object  in  es 
tablishing  this  government,  an  object 
forced  on  the  country  by  the  condition 
of  the  times  and  the  absolute  necessity 
of  the  law,  was  to  give  to  Congress 
power  to  lay  and  collect  imposts  with 
out  the  consent  of  particular  States.  The 
Revolutionary  debt  remained  unpaid; 
the  national  treasury  was  bankrupt ;  the 
country  was  destitute  of  credit;  Con 
gress  issued  its  requisitions  on  the 
States,  and  the  States  neglected  them; 
there  was  no  power  of  coercion  but  war, 
Congress  could  not  lay  imposts,  or  other 
taxes,  by  its  own  authority;  the  whole 
general  government,  therefore,  was  lit 
tle  more  than  a  name.  The  Articles  of 
Confederation,  as  to  purposes  of  revenue 
and  finance,  were  nearly  a  dead  letter. 
The  country  sought  to  escape  from  this 
condition,  at  once  feeble  arid  disgrace 
ful,  by  constituting  a  government  which 
should  have  power,  of  itself,  to  lay 
duties  and  taxes,  and  to  pay  the  public 
debt,  and  provide  for  the  general  wel 
fare;  and  to  lay  these  duties  and  taxes 
in  all  the  States,  without  asking  the 
consent  of  the  State  governments.  This 
was  the  very  power  on  which  the  new 
Constitution  was  to  depend  for  all  its 
ability  to  do  good ;  and  without  it,  it  can 
be  no  government,  now  or  at  any  time. 
Yet,  Sir,  it  is  precisely  against  this 
power,  so  absolutely  indispensable  to 
the  very  being  of  the  government,  that 
South  Carolina  directs  her  ordinance. 
She  attacks  the  government  in  its  au 
thority  to  raise  revenue,  the  very  main 
spring  of  the  whole  system;  and  if  she 
succeed,  every  movement  of  that  Sys 
tem  must  inevitably  cease.  It  is  of  no 
avail  that  she  declares  that  she  does  not 
resist  the  law  as  a  revenue  law,  but  as 
a  law  for  protecting  manufactures.  It 
is  a  revenue  law ;  it  is  the  very  law  by 


force  of  which  the  revenue  is  collected; 
if  it  be  arrested  in  any  State,  the  reve 
nue  ceases  in  that  State;  it  is,  in  a 
word,  the  sole  reliance  of  the  govern 
ment  for  the  means  of  maintaining  it 
self  and  performing  its  duties. 

Mr.  President,  the  alleged  rig-hf.  nf  a. 
jjtate  to  decide  constitutional  questions 
for  herself  necessarily  leads  to  force,  be- 
cause  other  States  must  have  the  same 
right,  and  because  different  States  will 
decide  differently;  and  when  these  ques 
tions  arise  between  States,  if  there  be  no 
superior  power,  they  can  be  decided  only 
by  the  law  of  force.  On  entering  into  the 
Union,  the  people  of  each  State  gave  up 
a  part  of  their  own  power  to  make  laws 
for  themselves,  in  consideration,  that, 
as  to  common  objects,  they  should  have 
a  part  in  making  laws  for  other  States. 
In  other  words,  the  people  of  all  the 
States  agreed  to  create  a  common  gov 
ernment,  to  be  conducted  by  common 
counsels.  Pennsylvania,  for  example, 
yielded  the  right  of  laying  imposts  in 
her  own  ports,  in  consideration  that  the 
new  government,  in  which  she  was  to 
have  a  share,  should  possess  the  power 
of  laying  imposts  on  all  the  States.  If 
South  Carolina  now  refuses  to  submit 
to  this  power,  she  breaks  the  condition 
on  which  other  States  entered  into  the 
Union.  She  partakes  of  the  common 
counsels,  and  therein  assists  to  bind 
others,  while  she  refuses  to  be  bound 
herself.  It  makes  no  difference  in  the 
case,  whether  she  does  all  this  without 
reason  or  pretext,  or  whether  she  sets 
up  as  a  reason,  that,  in  her  judgment, 
the  acts  complained  of  are  unconstitu 
tional.  In  the  judgment  of  other  States, 
they  are  not  so.  It  is  nothing  to  them 
that  she  offers  some  reason  or  some 
apology  for  her  conduct,  if  it  be  one 
which  they  do  not  admit.  It  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  any  State  will  violate  her 
duty  without  some  plausible  pretext. 
That  would  be  too  rash  a  defiance  of 
the  opinion  of  mankind.  But  if  it  be 
a  pretext  which  lies  in  her  own  breast, 
if  it  be  no  more  than  an  opinion  which 
she  says  she  has  formed,  how  can  other 
States  be  satisfied  with  this?  How  can 
they  allow  her  to  be  judge  of  her  own 


282 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


obligations?  Or,  if  she  may  judge  of 
her  obligations,  may  they  not  judge  of 
their  rights  also?  May  not  the  twenty- 
three  entertain  an  opinion  as  well  as  the 
twenty-fourth?  And  if  it  be  their  right, 
in  their  own  opinion,  as  expressed  in  the 
common  council,  to  enforce  the  law 
against  her,  how  is  she  to  say  that  her 
right  and  her  opinion  are  to  be  every 
thing,  and  their  right  and  their  opinion 
nothing? 

Mr.  President,  if  we  are  to  receive  the 
Constitution  as  the  text,  and  then  to  lay 
down  in  its  margin  the  contradictory 
commentaries  which  have  been,  and 
which  maybe,  made  by  different  States, 
the  whole  page  would  be  a  polyglot  in 
deed.  It  would  speak  with  as  many 
tongues  as  the  builders  of  Babel,  and  in 
dialects  as  much  confused,  and  mutu 
ally  as  unintelligible.  The  very  instance 
now  before  us  presents  a  practical  illus 
tration.  The  law  of  the  last  session  is 
declared  unconstitutional  in  South  Car 
olina,  and  obedience  to  it  is  refused. 
In  other  States,  it  is  admitted  to  be 
strictly  constitutional.  You  walk  over 
the  limit  of  its  authority,  therefore, 
when  you  pass  a  State  line.  On  one  side 
it  is  law,  on  the  other  side  a  nullity; 
and  yet  it  is  passed  by  a  common  gov 
ernment,  having  the  same  authority  in 
all  the  States. 

Such,  Sir,  are  the  inevitable  results  of 
this  doctrine.  Beginning  with  the  origi 
nal  error,  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  nothing  but  a  compact 
between  sovereign  States;  asserting,  in 
the  next  step,  that  each  State  has  a  right 
to  be  its  own  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of 
its  own  obligations,  and  consequently 
of  the  constitutionality  of  laws  of  Con 
gress;  and,  in  the  next,  that  it  <ay 
oppose  whatever  it  sees  fit  to  declare  un 
constitutional,  and  that  it  decides  for 
itself  on  the  mode  and  measure  of  re 
dress,  —  the  argument  arrives  at  once  at 
the  conclusion,  that  what  a  State  dis 
sents  from,  it  may  nullify;  what  it  op 
poses,  it  may  oppose  by  force ;  what  it 
decides  for  itself,  it  may  execute  by  its 
own  power;  and  that,  in  short,  it  is 
itself  supreme  over  the  legislation  of 
Congress,  and  supreme  over  the  decis 


ions  of  the  national  judicature ;  supreme 
over  the  constitution  of  the  country,  su 
preme  over  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 
However  it  seeks  to  protect  itself  against 
these  plain  inferences,  by  saying  that 
an  unconstitutional  law  is  no  law,  and 
that  it  only  opposes  such  laws  as  are  un- 
constitufcional,  yet  this  does  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  vary  the  result ;  since  it 
insists  on  deciding  this  question  for  it 
self ;  and,  in  opposition  to  reason  and 
argument,  in  opposition  to  practice  and 
experience,  in  opposition  to  the  judg 
ment  of  others,  having  an  equal  right  to 
judge,  it  says,  only,  "  Such  is  my  opin 
ion,  and  my  opinion  shall  be  my  law, 
and  I  will  support  it  by  my  own  strong 
hand.  I  denounce  the  law;  I  declare 
it  unconstitutional;  that  is  enough;  it 
shall  not  be  executed.  Men  in  arms  are 
ready  to  resist  its  execution.  An  at 
tempt  to  enforce  it  shall  cover  the  land 
with  blood.  Elsewhere  it  may  be  bind 
ing  ;  but  here  it  is  trampled  under  foot. ' ' 

This,  Sir,  is  practical  nullification. 
^Ind  now,  Sir,  against  all  these  theo 
ries  and  opinions,  I  maintain,  — 

1.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  not  a  league,  confederacy,  or 
compact  between  the  people  of  the  sev 
eral  States  in  their  sovereign  capacities ; 
but   a  government  proper,  founded  on 
the  adoption  of  the  people,  and  creating 
direct  relation?  between  itself  and  indi 
viduals. 

2.  That  no  State  authority  has  power 
to  dissolve  these  relations ;  that  nothing 
can  dissolve  them  but  revolution;   and 
that,  consequently,  there  can  be  no  such 
thing  as  secession  without  revolution. 

3.  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  con 
sisting  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  acts  of  Congress  passed  in 
pursuance  of  it,  and  treaties;  and  that, 
in  cases  not  capable   of    assuming  the 
character   of  a   suit   in   law  or  equity, 
Congress  must  judge  of,  and  finally  in 
terpret,  this  supreme  law  so  often  as  it 
has  occasion  to  pass  acts  of  legislation ; 
and  in  cases  capable  of  assuming,  and 
actually  assuming,    the   character  of   a 
suit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  is  the  final  interpreter. 

4.  That  an  attempt  by  a  State  to  ab- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


283 


rogate,  annul,  or  nullify  an  act  of  Con 
gress,  or  to  arrest  its  operation  within 
her  limits,  on  the  ground  that,  in  her 
opinion,  such  law  is  unconstitutional,  is 
a  direct  usurpation  on  the  just  powers 
of  the  general  government,  and  on  the 
equal  rights  of  other  States;  a  plain  vi 
olation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  pro 
ceeding  essentially  revolutionary  in  its 
character  and  tendency. 

Whether  the  Constitution  be  a  com 
pact  between  States  in  their  sovereign 
capacities,  is  a  question  which  must  be 
mainly  argued  from  what  is  contained 
in  the  instrument  itself.  We  all  agree 
that  it  is  an  instrument  which  has  been 
in  some  way  clothed  with  power.  We 
all  admit  that  it  speaks  with  authority. 
The  first  question  then  is,  What  does  it 
say  of  itself?  What  does  it  purport  to 
be?  Does  it  style  itself  a  league,  con 
federacy,  or  compact  between  sovereign 
States?  It  is  to  be  remembered,  Sir, 
that  the  Constitution  began  to  speak 
only  after  its  adoption.  Until  it  was 
ratified  by  nine  States,  it  was  but  a  pro 
posal,  the  mere  draught  of  an  instru 
ment.  It  was  like  a  deed  drawn,  but 
not  executed.  The  Convention  had 
framed  it;  sent  it  to  Congress,  then  sit 
ting  under  the  Confederation ;  Congress 
had  transmitted  it  to  the  State  legisla 
tures  ;  and  by  these  last  it  was  laid  be 
fore  conventions  of  the  people  in  the 
several  States.  All  this  while  it  was 
inoperative  paper.  It  had  received  no 
stamp  of  authority,  no  sanction;  it 
spoke  no  language.  But  when  ratified 
by  the  people  in  their  respective  conven 
tions,  then  it  had  a  voice,  and  spoke  au 
thentically.  Every  word  in  it  had  then 
received  the  sanction  of  the  popular 
will,  and  was  to  be  received  as  the  ex 
pression  of  that  will.  What  the  Con 
stitution  says  of  itself,  therefore,  is  as 
conclusive  as  what  it  says  on  any  other 
point.  Does  it  call  itself  a  "  compact  "? 
Certainly  not.  It  uses  the  word  compact 
but  once,  and  that  is  when  it  declares 
that  the  States  shall  enter  into  no  com 
pact.  Does  it  call  itself  a  "  league,"  a 
"  confederacy,"  a  "  subsisting  treaty 
between  the  States"?  Certainly  not. 
There  is  not  a  particle  of  such  language 


in  all  its  pages.  But  it  declares  itself  a 
CONSTITUTION.  What  is  a  constitution  f 
Certainly  not  a  league,  compact,  or  con 
federacy,  but  a  fundamental  law.  That 
fundamental  regulation  which  deter 
mines  the  manner  in  which  the  public 
authority  is  to  be  executed,  is  what 
forms  the  constitution  of  a  state.  Those 
primary  rules  which  concern  the  body 
itself,  and  the  very  being  of  the  politi 
cal  society,  the  form  of  government,  and 
the  manner  in  which  power  is  to  be  ex 
ercised,  —  all,  in  a  word,  which  form, 
together  the  constitution  of  a  state, — 
these  are  the  fundamental  laws.  This, 
Sir,  is  the  language  of  the  public  writ 
ers.  But  do  we  need  to  be  informed, 
in  this  country,  what  a  constitution  is? 
Is  it  not  an  idea  perfectly  familiar,  defi 
nite,  and  well  settled?  We  are  at  no 
loss  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  the 
constitution  of  one  of  the  States;  and 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
speaks  of  itself  as  being  an  instrument 
of  the  same  nature.  It  says  this  Con 
stitution  shall  be  the  law  of  the  land,  any 
thing  in  any  State  constitution  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  And  it  speaks 
of  itself,  too,  in  plain  contradistinction 
from  a  confederation;  for  it  says  that 
all  debts  contracted,  and  all  engagements 
entered  into,  by  the  United  States,  shall 
be  as  valid  under  this  Constitution  as 
under  the  Confederation.  It  does  not 
say,  as  valid  under  this  compact,  or  this 
league,  or  this  confederation,  as  under 
the  former  confederation,  but  as  valid 
under  this  Constitution. 

This,  then,  Sir,  is  declared  to  be  a 
constitution.  A  constitution  is  the  fun 
damental  law  of  the  state;  and  this  is 
expressly  declared  to  be  the  supreme 
law.  It  is  as  if  the  people  had  said, 
"  We  prescribe  this  fundamental  law," 
or  "  this  supreme  law,"  for  they  do  say 
that  they  establish  this  Constitution, 
and  that  it  shall  be  the  supreme  law. 
They  say  that  they  ordain  and  establish  it. 
Now,  Sir,  what  is  the  common  applica 
tion  of  these  words?  We  do  not  speak 
of  ordaining  leagues  and  compacts.  If 
this  was  intended  to  be  a  compact  or 
league,  and  the  States  to  be  parties  to  it, 
why  was  it  not  so  said?  Why  is  there 


284 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


found  no  one  expression  in  the  whole  in 
strument  indicating  such  intent?  The 
old  Confederation  was  expressly  called  a 
league,  and  into  this  league  it  was  de 
clared  that  the  States,  as  States,  severally 
entered.  Why  was  not  similar  language 
used  in  the  Constitution,  if  a  similar  in 
tention  had  existed?  Why  was  it  not 
said,  "the  States  enter  into  this  new 
league,"  "  the  States  form  this  new  con 
federation,"  or  "  the  States  agree  to  this 
new  compact  "  ?  Or  why  was  it  not  said, 
in  the  language  of  the  gentleman's  res 
olution,  that  the  people  of  the  several 
States  acceded  to  this  compact  in  their 
sovereign  capacities?  What  reason  is 
there  for  supposing  that  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  rejected  expressions 
appropriate  to  their  own  meaning,  and 
adopted  others  wholly  at  war  with  that 
meaning? 

Again,  Sir,  the  Constitution  speaks 
of  that  political  system  which  is  estab 
lished  as  "  the  government  of  the  United 
States."  Is  it  not  doing  strange  vio 
lence  to  language  to  call  a  league  or 
a  compact  between  sovereign  powers  a 
government  f  The  government  of  a  state 
is  that  organization  in  which  the  politi 
cal  power  resides.  It  is  the  political 
being  created  by  the  constitution  or 
fundamental  law.  The  broad  and  clear 
difference  between  a  government  and  a 
league  or  compact  is,  that  a  government 
is  a  body  politic;  it  has  a  will  of  its 
own ;  and  it  possesses  powers  and  facul 
ties  to  execute  its  own  purposes.  Every 
compact  looks  to  some  power  to  enforce 
its  stipulations.  Even  in  a  compact 
between  sovereign  communities,  there 
always  exists  this  ultimate  reference  to  a 
power  to  insure  its  execution;  although, 
in  such  case,  this  power  is  but  the  force 
of  one  party  against  the  force  of  an 
other;  that  is  to  say,  the  power  of  war. 
But  a  government  executes  its  decisions 
by  its  own  supreme  authority.  Its  use 
of  force  in  compelling  obedience  to  its 
own  enactments  is  not  war.  It  contem 
plates  no  opposing  party  having  a  right 
of  resistance.  It  rests  on  its  own  power 
to  enforce  its  own  will;  and  when  it 
ceases  to  possess  this  power,  it  is  no 
longer  a  government. 


Mr.  President,  I  concur  so  generally 
in  the  very  able  speech  of  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  near  me,1  that  it  is  not 
without  diffidence  and  regret  that  I  ven 
ture  to  differ  with  him  on  anv  point. 
His  opinions,  Sir,  are  redolent  of  the 
doctrines  of  a  very  distinguished  school, 
for  whicjf  I  have  the  highest  regard,  of 
whose  doctrines  I  can  say,  what  I  can 
also  say  of  the  gentleman's  speech,  that, 
while  I  concur  in  the  results,  I  must  be 
permitted  to  hesitate  about  some  of  the 
premises.  I  do  not  agree  that  the  Con 
stitution  is  a  compact  between  States  in 
their  sovereign  capacities.  I  do  not 
agree,  that,  in  strictness  of  language,  it 
is  a  compact  at  all.  But  I  do  agree 
that  it  is  founded  on  consent  or  agree 
ment,  or  on  compact,  if  the  gentleman 
prefers  that  word,  and  means  no  more 
by  it  than  voluntary  consent  or  agree 
ment.  The  Constitution,  Sir,  is  not  a 
contract,  but  the  result  of  a  contract; 
meaning  by  contract  no  more  than  as 
sent.  Founded  on  consent,  it  is  a 
government  proper.  Adopted  by  the 
agreement  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  when  adopted,  it  has  become  a 
Constitution.  The  people  have  agreed 
to  make  a  Constitution ;  but  when  made, 
that  Constitution  becomes  what  its  name 
imports.  It  is  no  longer  a  mere  agree 
ment.  Our  laws,  Sir,  have  their  foun 
dation  in  the  agreement  or  consent  of 
the  two  houses  of  Congress.  We  say, 
habitually,  that  one  house  proposes  a 
bill,  and  the  other  agrees  to  it;  but  the 
result  of  this  agreement  is  not  a  com 
pact,  but  a  law.  The  law,  the  statute, 
is  not  the  agreement,  but  something 
created  by  the  agreement;  and  some 
thing  which,  when  created,  has  a  new 
character,  and  acts  by  its  own  author 
ity.  So  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  founded  in  or  on  the  consent  of 
the  people,  may  be  said  to  rest  on  com 
pact  or  consent ;  but  it  is  not  itself  the 
compact,  but  its  result.  When  the  peo 
ple  agree  to  erect  a  government,  and 
actually  erect  it,  the  thing  is  done,  and 
the  agreement  is  at  an  end.  The  com 
pact  is  executed,  and  the  end  designed 
by  it  attained.  Henceforth,  the  fruit 
i  Mr.  Rives. 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN  STATES. 


285 


of  the  agreement  exists,  but  the  agree 
ment  itself  is  merged  in  its  own  accom 
plishment  ;  since  there  can  be  no  longer 
a  subsisting  agreement  or  compact  to 
form  a  constitution  or  government,  after 
that  constitution  or  government  has  been 
actually  formed  and  established. 

It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  plainest  account  of  the  establish 
ment  of  this  government  presents  the 
most  just  and  philosophical  view  of  its 
foundation.  The  people  of  the  several 
States  had  their  separate  State  govern 
ments;  and  between  the  States  there 
also  existed  a  Confederation.  With  this 
condition  of  things  the  people  were  not 
satisfied,  as  the  Confederation  had  been 
found  not  to  fulfil  its  intended  objects. 
It  was  proposed,  therefore,  to  erect  a 
new,  common  government,  which  should 
possess  certain  definite  powers,  such  as 
regarded  the  prosperity  of  the  people  of 
all  the  States,  and  to  be  formed  upon 
the  general  model  of  American  consti 
tutions.  This  proposal  was  assented 
to,  and  an  instrument  was  presented  to 
the  people  of  the  several  States  for  their 
consideration.  They  approved  it,  and 
agreed  to  adopt  it,  as  a  Constitution. 
They  executed  that  agreement;  they 
adopted  the  Constitution  as  a  Constitu 
tion,  and  henceforth  it  must  stand  as  a 
Constitution  until  it  shall  be  altogether 
destroyed.  Now,  Sir,  is  not  this  the 
truth  of  the  whole  matter?  And  is  not 
all  that  we  have  heard  of  compact  be 
tween  sovereign  States  the  mere  effect 
of  a  theoretical  and  artificial  mode  of 
reasoning  upon  the  subject?  a  mode  of 
reasoning  which  disregards  plain  facts 
for  the  sake  of  hypothesis? 

Mr.  President,  the  nature  of  sover 
eignty  or  sovereign  power  has  been  ex 
tensively  discussed  by  gentlemen  on  this 
occasion,  as  it  generally  is  when  the  ori 
gin  of  our  government  is  debated.  But 
I  confess  myself  not  entirely  satisfied 
with  arguments  and  illustrations  drawn 
from  that  topic.  The  sovereignty  of 
government  is  an  idea  belonging  to  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  No  such 
thing  is  known  in  North  America.  Our 
governments  are  all  limited.  In  Eu 
rope,  sovereignty  is  of  feudal  origin, 


and  imports  no  more  than  the  state  of 
the  sovereign.  It  comprises  his  rights, 
duties,  exemptions,  prerogatives,  and 
powers.  But  with  us,  all  power  is  with 
the  people.  They  alone  are  sovereign; 
and  they  erect  what  governments  they 
please,  and  confer  on  them  such  powers 
as  they  please.  None  of  these  govern 
ments  is  sovereign,  in  the  European 
sense  of  the  word,  all  being  restrained 
by  written  constitutions.  It  seems  to 
me,  therefore,  that  we  only  perplex  our 
selves  when  we  attempt  to  explain  the 
relations  existing  between  the  general 
government  and  the  several  State  gov 
ernments,  according  to  those  ideas  of 
sovereignty  which  prevail  under  systems 
essentially  different  from  our  own. 

But,  Sir,  to  return  to  the  Constitu 
tion  itself;  let  me  inquire  what  it  relies 
upon  for  its  own  continuance  and  sup 
port.  I  hear  it  often  suggested,  that 
the  States,  by  refusing  to  appoint  Sena 
tors  and  Electors,  might  bring  this  gov 
ernment  to  an  end.  Perhaps  that  is 
true ;  but  the  same  may  be  said  of  the 
State  governments  themselves.  Sup 
pose  the  legislature  of  a  State,  having 
the  power  to  appoint  the  governor  and 
the  judges,  should  omit  that  duty,  would 
not  the  State  government  remain  unor 
ganized?  No  doubt,  all  elective  govern 
ments  may  be  broken  up  by  a  general 
abandonment,  on  the  part  of  those  in 
trusted  with  political  powers,  of  their 
appropriate  duties.  But  one  popular 
government  has,  in  this  respect,  as 
much  security  as  another.  The  main 
tenance  of  this  Constitution  does  not 
depend  on  the  plighted  faith  of  the 
States,  as  States,  to  support  it;  and  this 
again  shows  that  it  is  not  a  league.  It 
relies  on  individual  duty  and  obliga 
tion. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
creates  direct  relations  between  this 
government  and  individuals.  This  gov 
ernment  may  punish  individuals  for 
treason,  and  all  other  crimes  in  the 
code,  when  committed  against  the  Unit 
ed  States.  It  has  power,  also,  to  tax 
individuals,  in  any  mode,  and  to  any 
extent;  and  it  possesses  the  further 
power  of  demanding  from  individuals 


286 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 


military  service.  Nothing,  certainly, 
can  more  clearly  distinguish  a  govern 
ment  from  a  confederation  of  states 
than  the  possession  of  these  powers. 
No  closer  relations  can  exist  between 
individuals  and  any  government. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  government 
owes  high  and  solemn  duties  to  every 
citizen  of  the  country.  It  is  bound  to 
protect  him  in  his  most  important  rights 
and  interests.  It  makes  war  for  his 
protection,  and  no  other  government  in 
the  country  can  make  war.  It  makes 
peace  for  his  protection,  and  no  other 
government  can  make  peace.  It  main 
tains  armies  and  navies  for  his  defence 
and  security,  and  no  other  government 
is  allowed  to  maintain  them.  He  goes 
abroad  beneath  its  flag,  and  carries  over 
all  the  earth  a  national  character  im 
parted  to  him  by  this  government,  and 
which  no  other  government  can  impart. 
In  whatever  relates  to  war,  to  peace,  to 
commerce,  he  knows  no  other  govern 
ment.  All  these,  Sir,  are  connections 
as  dear  and  as  sacred  as  can  bind  indi 
viduals  to  any  government  on  earth. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  a  compact  between 
States,  but  a  government  proper,  operat 
ing  directly  upon  individuals,  yielding 
to  them  protection  on  the  one  hand, 
and  demanding  from  them  obedience  on 
the  other^^^ 

There  is  no  language  in  the  whole 
Constitution  applicable  to  a  confedera 
tion  of  States.  If  the  States  be  parties, 
as  States,  what  are  their  rights,  and 
what  their  respective  covenants  and  stip 
ulations?  And  where  are  their  rights, 
covenants,  and  stipulations  expressed? 
The  States  engage  for  nothing,  they 
promise  nothing.  In  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  they  did  make  promises, 
and  did  enter  into  engagements,  and  did 
plight  the  faith  of  each  State  for  their 
fulfilment;  but  in  the  Constitution  there 
is  nothing  of  that  kind.  The  reason  is, 
that,  in  the  Constitution,  it  is  the  people 
who  speak,  and  not  the  States.  The 
people  ordain  the  Constitution,  and 
therein  address  themselves  to  the  States, 
and  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  in 
the  language  of  injunction  and  prohibi 
tion.  The  Constitution  utters  its  be 


hests  in  the  name  and  by  authority  of 
the  people,  and  it  does  not  exact  from 
States  any  plighted  public  faith  to  main 
tain  it.  On  the  contrary,  it  makes  its 
own  preservation  depend  on  individual 
duty  and  individual  obligation.  Sir, 
the  States  cannot  omit  to  appoint  Sena 
tors  and  Electors.  It  is  not  a  matter 
resting  in  State  discretion  or  State  pleas 
ure.  The  Constitution  has  taken  better 
care  of  its  own  preservation.  It  lays  its 
hand  on  individual  conscience  and  indi 
vidual  duty.  It  incapacitates  any  man 
to  sit  in  the  legislature  of  a  State,  who 
shall  not  first  have  taken  his  solemn 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  From  the  obligation  of 
this  oath,  no  State  power  can  discharge 
him.  All  the  members  of  all  the  State 
legislatures  are  as  religiously  bound  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  they  are  to  support  their  own 
State  constitution.  Nay,  Sir,  they  are 
as  solemnly  sworn  to  support  it  as  we 
ourselves  are,  who  are  members  of  Con 
gress. 

No  member  of  a  State  legislature  can 
refuse  to  proceed,  at  the  proper  time, 
to  elect  Senators  to  Congress,  or  to  pro 
vide  for  the  choice  of  Electors  of  Presi 
dent  and  Vice-President,  any  more  than 
the  members  of  this  Senate  can  refuse, 
when  the  appointed  day  arrives,  to  meet 
the  members  of  the  other  house,  to 
count  the  votes  for  those  officers,  and 
ascertain  who  are  chosen.  In  both 
cases,  the  duty  binds,  and  with  equal 
strength,  the  conscience  of  the  individ 
ual  member,  and  it  is  imposed  on  all  by 
an  oath  in  the  same  words.  Let  it  then 
never  be  said,  Sir,  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
discretion  with  the  States  whether  they 
will  continue  the  government,  or  break 
it  up  by  refusing  to  appoint  Senators 
and  to  elect  Electors.  They  have  no 
discretion  in  the  matter.  The  members 
of  their  legislatures  cannot  avoid  doing 
either,  so  often  as  the  time  arrives,  with 
out  a  direct  violation  of  their  duty  and 
their  oaths;  such  a  violation  as  would 
break  up  any  other  government. 

Looking  still  further  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  in  order  to 
learn  its  true  character,  we  find  its  great 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


287 


apparent  purpose  to  be,  to  unite  the  peo 
ple  of  all  the  States  under  one  general 
government,  for  certain  definite  objects, 
and,  to  the  extent  of  this  union,  to  re 
strain  the  separate  authority  of  the  States. 
Congress  only  can  declare  war;  there 
fore,  when  one  State  is  at  war  with  a 
foreign  nation,  all  must  be  at  war.  The 
President  and  the  Senate  only  can  make 
peace;  when  peace  is  made  for  one 
State,  therefore,  it  must  be  made  for 
all. 

Can  any  thing  be  conceived  more  pre 
posterous,  than  that  any  State  should 
have  power  to  nullify  the  proceedings 
of  the  general  government  respecting 
peace  and  war?  When  war  is  declared 
by  a  law  of  Congress,  can  a  single  State 
nullify  that  law,  and  remain  at  peace? 
And  yet  she  may  nullify  that  law  as 
well  as  any  other.  If  the  President 
and  Senate  make  peace,  may  one  State, 
nevertheless,  continue  the  war?  And 
yet,  if  she  can  nullify  a  law,  she  may 
quite  as  well  nullify  a  treaty. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  President,  and  no 
ingenuity  of  argument,  no  subtilty  of 
distinction  can  evade  it,  that,  as  to  cer 
tain  purposes,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  one  people.  They  are  one 
in  making  war,  and  one  in  making 
peace ;  they  are  one  in  regulating  com 
merce,  and  one  in  laying  duties  of  im 
posts.  The  very  end  and  purpose  of  the 
Constitution  was,  to  make  them  one 
people  in  these  particulars;  and  it  has 
effectually  accomplished  its  object.  All 
this  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  Con 
stitution  itself.  I  have  already  said, 
Sir,  that  to  obtain  a  power  of  direct 
legislation  over  the  people,  especially  in 
regard  to  imposts,  was  always  promi 
nent  as  a  reason  for  getting  rid  of  the 
Confederation,  and  forming  a  new  Con 
stitution.  Among  innumerable  proofs 
of  this,  before  the  assembling  of  the 
Convention,  allow  me  to  refer  only  to 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  old 
Congress,  July,  1785. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  go  to  the  actual  forma 
tion  of  the  Constitution;  let  us  open 
the  journal  of  the  Convention  itself,  and 
we  shall  see  that  the  very  first  resolu 
tion  which  the  Convention  adopted  was, 


"THAT  A  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT 
OUGHT  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED,  CONSIST 
ING  OF  A  SUPREME  LEGISLATURE,  JU 
DICIARY,  AND  EXECUTIVE." 

This  itself  completely  negatives  all 
idea  of  league,  and  compact,  and  con 
federation.  Terms  could  not  be  chosen 
"more  fit  to  express  an  intention  to  estab 
lish  a  national  government,  and  to  ban 
ish  for  ever  all  notion  of  a  compact 
between  sovereign  States. 

This  resolution  was  adopted  on  the 
30th  of  May,  1787.  Afterwards,  the 
style  was  altered,  and,  instead  of  being 
called  a  national  government,  it  was 
called  the  government  of  the  United 
States;  but  the  substance  of  this  res 
olution  was  retained,  and  was  at  the 
head  of  that  list  of  resolutions  which 
was  afterwards  sent  to  the  committee 
who  were  to  frame  the  instrument. 

It  is  true,  there  were  gentlemen  in 
the  Convention,  who  were  for  retaining 
the  Confederation,  and  amending  its 
Articles;  but  the  majority  was  against 
this,  and  was.  for  a  national  govern 
ment.  Mr.  Patterson's  propositions, 
•which  were  for  continuing  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation  with  additional 
powers,  were  submitted  to  the  Conven 
tion  on  the  15th  of  June,  and  referred 
to  the  committee  of  the  whole.  The 
resolutions  forming  the  bttsij^of  a  na 
tional  government,  which  had  once 
been  agreed  to  in  the  committee  of  the 
whole,  and  reported,  were  recommitted 
to  the  same  committee,  on  the  same 
day.  The  Convention,  then,  in  com 
mittee  of  the  whole,  on  the  19th  of 
June,  had  both  these  plans  before  them; 
that  is  to  say,  the  plan  of  a  confeder 
acy,  or  compact,  between  States,  and 
the  plan  of  a  national  government. 
Both  these  plans  were  considered  and 
debated,  and  the  committee  reported, 
"  That  they  do  not  agree  to  the  proposi 
tions  offered  by  the  honorable  Mr.  Pat 
terson,  but  that  they  again  submit  the 
resolutions  formerly. reported."  If,  Sir, 
any  historical  fact  in  the  world  be  plain 
and  undeniable,  it  is  that  the  Convention 
deliberated  on  the  expediency  of  con 
tinuing  the  Confederation,  with  some 
amendments,  and  rejected  that  scheme, 


288 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


and  adopted  the  plan  of  a  national 
government,  with  a  legislature,  an  ex 
ecutive,  and  a  judiciary  of  its  own. 
They  were  asked  to  preserve  the  league ; 
they  rejected  the  proposition.  They 
were  asked  to  continue  the  existing 
compact  between  States;  they  rejected 
it.  They  rejected  compact,  league,  and 
confederation,  and  set  themselves  about 
framing  the  constitution  of  a  national 
government;  and  they  accomplished 
what  they  undertook. 

If  men  will  open  their  eyes  fairly  to 
the  lights  of  history,  it  is  impossible  to 
be  deceived  on  this  point.  The  great 
object  was  to  supersede  the  Confedera 
tion  by  a  regular  government;  because, 
under  the  Confederation,  Congress  had 
power  only  to  make  requisitions  on 
States;  and  if  States  declined  compli 
ance,  as  they  did,  there  was  no  remedy 
but  war  against  such  delinquent  States. 
It  would  seem,  from  Mr.  Jefferson's 
correspondence,  in  1786  and  1787,  that 
he  was  of  opinion  that  even  this  remedy 
ought  to  be  tried.  u  There  will  be  no 
money  in  the  treasury,"  said  he,  "till 
the  confederacy  shows  its  teeth";  and 
he  suggests  that  a  single  frigate  would 
soon  levy,  on  the  commerce  of  a  delin 
quent  State,  the  deficiency  of  its  contri 
bution.  But  this  would  be  war;  and  it 
was  evident  that  a  confederacy  could 
not  long  hold  together,  which  should  be 
at  war  with  its  members.  The  Consti 
tution  was  adopted  to  avoid  this  neces 
sity.  It  was  adopted  that  there  might 
be  a  government  which  should  act  di 
rectly  on  individuals,  without  borrow 
ing  aid  from  the  State  governments. 
This  is  clear  as  light  itself  on  the  very 
face  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  its  whole  history  tends  to  the 
same  conclusion.  Its  framers  gave  this 
very  reason  for  their  work  in  the  most 
distinct  terms.  Allow  me  to  quote  but 
one  or  two  proofs,  out  of  hundreds. 
That  State,  so  small  in  territory,  but 
so  distinguished  for  learning  and  talent, 
Connecticut,  had  sent  to  the  general 
Convention,  among  other  members, 
Samuel  Johnston  and  Oliver  Ellsworth. 
The  Constitution  having  been  framed, 
it  was  submitted  to  a  convention  of  the 


people  of  Connecticut  for  ratification  on 
the  part  of  that  State;  and  Mr.  John 
ston  and  Mr.  Ellsworth  were  also  mem 
bers  of  this  convention.  On  the  first 
day  of  the  debates,  being  called  on  to 
explain  the  reasons  which  led  the  Con 
vention  at  Philadelphia  to  recommend 
such  a  Constitution,  after  showing  the 
insufficiency  of  the  existing  confeder 
acy,  inasmuch  as  it  applied  to  States, 
as  States,  Mr.  Johnston  proceeded  to 
say:  — 

"  The  Convention  saw  this  imperfection 
in  attempting  to  legislate  for  States  in  their 
political  capacity,  that  the  coercion  of  law 
can  be  exercised  by  nothing  but  a  military 
force.  They  have,  therefore,  gone  upon 
entirely  new  ground.  They  have  formed 
one  new  nation  out  of  the  individual 
States.  The  Constitution  vests  in  the 
general  legislature  a  power  to  make  laws 
in  matters  of  national  concern  ;  to  appoint 
judges  to  decide  upon  these  laws ;  and  to 
appoint  officers  to  carry  them  into  execu 
tion.  This  excludes  the  idea  of  an  armed 
force.  The  power  which  is  to  enforce 
these  laws  is  to  be  a  legal  power,  vested  in 
proper  magistrates.  The  force  which  is  to 
be  employed  is  the  energy  of  law ;  and 
this  force  is  to  operate  only  upon  individ 
uals  who  fail  in  their  duty  to  their  coun 
try.  This  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  the 
Constitution,  that  it  depends  upon  the  mild 
and  equal  energy  of  the  magistracy  for 
the  execution  of  the  laws." 

In  the  further  course  of  the  debate, 
Mr.  Ellsworth  said :  — 

"  In  republics,  it  is  a  fundamental  princi 
ple,  that  the  majority  govern,  and  that  the 
minority  comply  with  the  general  voice. 
How  contrary,  then,  to  republican  princi 
ples,  how  humiliating,  is  our  present  situa 
tion  !  A  single  State  can  rise  up.  and  put 
a  veto  upon  the  most  important  public 
measures.  We  have  seen  this  actually 
take  place;  a  single  State  has  controlled 
the  general  voice  of  the  Union ;  a  minority, 
a  very  small  minority,  has  governed  us. 
So  far  is  this  from  being  consistent  with 
republican  principles,  that  it  is,  in  effect, 
the  worst  species  of  monarchy. 

"  Hence  we  see  how  necessary  for  the 
Union  is  a  coercive  principle.  -  No  man  pre 
tends  the  contrary.  We  all  see  and  feel 
this  necessity.  The  only  question  is,  Shall 
it  be  a  coercion  of  law,  or  a  coercion  of 


BETWEEN    SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


289 


arms  ?  There  is  no  other  possible  alterna 
tive.  Where  will  those  who  oppose  a  co 
ercion  of  law  come  out  ?  Where  will  they 
end  ?  A  necessary  consequence  of  their 
principles  is  a  war  of  the  States  one  against 
another.  I  am  for  coercion  by  law ;  that 
coercion  which  acts  only  upon  delinquent 
individuals.  This  Constitution  does  not 
attempt  to  coerce  sovereign  bodies,  States, 
in  their  political  capacity.  No  coercion  is 
applicable  to  such  bodies,  but  that  of  an 
armed  force.  If  we  should  attempt  to  exe 
cute  the  laws  of  the  Union  by  sending  an 
armed  force  against  a  delinquent  State,  it 
would  involve  the  good  and  bad,  the  inno 
cent  and  guilty,  in  the  same  calamity.  But 
this  legal  coercion  singles  out  the  guilty 
individual,  and  punishes  him  for  breaking 
the  laws  of  the  Union." 

Indeed,  Sir,  if  we  look  to  all  contem 
porary  history,  to  the  numbers  of  the 
Federalist,  to  the  debates  in  the  con 
ventions,  to  the  publications  of  friends 
and  foes,  they  all  agree,  that  a  change 
had  been  made  from  a  confederacy  of 
States  to  a  different  system;  they  all 
agree,  that  the  Convention  had  formed 
a  Constitution  for  a  national  govern 
ment.  With  this  result  some  were  satis 
fied,  and  some  were  dissatisfied ;  but  all 
admitted  that  the  thing  had  been  done. 
In  none  of  these  various  productions  and 
publications  did  any  one  intimate  that 
the  new  Constitution  was  but  another 
compact  between  States  in  their  sover 
eign  capacities.  I  do  not  find  such  an 
opinion  advanced  in  a  single  instance. 
Everywhere,  the  people  were  told  that 
the  old  Confederation  was  to  be  aban 
doned,  and  a  new  system  to  be  tried; 
that  a  proper  government  was  proposed, 
to  be  founded  in  the  name  of  the  people, 
and  to  have  a  regular  organization  of  its 
own.  Everywhere,  the  people  were  told 
that  it  was  to  be  a  government  with 
direct  powers  to  make  laws  over  individ 
uals,  and  to  lay  taxes  and  imposts  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  States.  Every 
where,  it  was  understood  to  be  a  popular 
Constitution.  It  came  to  the  people  for 
their  adoption,  and  was  to  rest  on  the 
same  deep  foundation  as  the  State 
constitutions  themselves.  Its  most  dis 
tinguished  advocates,  who  had  been 
themselves  members  of  the  Convention, 


19 


declared  that  the  very  object  of  submit 
ting  the  Constitution  to  the  people  was, 
to  preclude  the  possibility  of  its  being 
regarded  as  a  mere  compact.  "  However 
gross  a  heresy,"  say  the  writers  of  the 
Federalist,  "it  may  be  to  maintain 
that  a  party  to  a  compact  has  a  right  to 
revoke  that  compact,  the  doctrine  itself 
has  had  respectable  advocates.  The  pos 
sibility  of  a  question  of  this  nature 
proves  the  necessity  of  laying  the  foun 
dations  of  our  national  government 
deeper  than  in  the  mere  sanction  of 
delegated  authority.  The  fabric  of 
American  empire  ought  to  rest  on  the 
solid  basis  of  THE  CONSENT  OF  THE 
PEOPLE." 

Such  is  the  language,  Sir,  addressed 
to  the  people,  while  they  yet  had  the 
Constitution  under  consideration.  The 
powers  conferred  on  the  new  govern 
ment  were  perfectly  well  understood  to 
be  conferred,  not  by  any  State,  or  the 
people  of  any  State,  but  by  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  Virginia  is  more 
explicit,  perhaps,  in  this  particular,  than 
any  other  State.  Her  convention,  as 
sembled  to  ratify  the  Constitution,  "  in 
the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  declare  and  make  known,  that 
the  powers  granted  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  being  derived  from  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  may  be  resumed  by  them 
whenever  the  same  shall  be  perverted  to 
their  injury  or  oppression." 

Is  this  language  which  describes  the 
formation  of  a  compact  between  States? 
or  language  describing  the  grant  of  pow 
ers  to  a  new  government,  by  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  States? 

Among  all  the  other  ratifications,  there 
is  not  one  which  speaks  of  the  Constitu 
tion  as  a  compact  between  States.  Those 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire 
express  the  transaction,  in  my  opinion, 
with  sufficient  accuracy.  They  recognize 
the  Divine  goodness  "in  affording  THE 

PEOPLE    OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  an  Op- 

portunity  of  entering  into  an  explicit 
and  solemn  compact  with  each  other,  by 
assenting  to  and  ratifying  a  new  Constitu 
tion."  You  will  observe,  Sir,  that  it  is 
the  PEOPLE,  and  not  the  States,  who 
have  entered  into  this  compact;  and  it 


290 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


is  the  PEOPLE  of  all  the  United  States. 
These  conventions,  by  this  form  of  ex 
pression,  meant  merely  to  say,  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  had.  by  the 
blessing  of  Providence,  enjoyed  the  op 
portunity  of  establishing  a  new  Con 
stitution,  founded  in  the  consent  of  the 
people.  This  consent  of  the  people  has 
been  called,  by  European  writers,  the 
social  compact ;  and,  in  conformity  to  this 
common  mode  of  expression,  these  con 
ventions  speak  of  that  assent,  on  which 
the  new  Constitution  was  to  rest,  as  an 
explicit  and  solemn  compact,  not  which 
the  States  had  entered  into  with  each 
other,  but  which  the  people  of  the  United 
States  had  entered  into. 

Finally,  Sir,  how  can  any  man  get 
over  the  words  of  the  Constitution  it 
self  ?  —  "WE,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES,  DO  ORDAIN  AND  ES 
TABLISH  THIS  CONSTITUTION."  These 
words  must  cease  to  be  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  they  must  be  obliterated 
from  the  parchment  on  which  they  are 
written,  before  any  human  ingenuity  or 
human  argument  can  remove  the  popular 
basis  on  which  that  Constitution  rests, 
and  turn  the  instrument  into  a  mere 
compact  between  sovereign  States. 

The  second  proposition,  Sir,  which  I 
propose  to  maintain,  is,  that  no  State 
authority  can  dissolve  the  relations  sub 
sisting  between  the  government  of  the 
United  States  and  individuals  ;  that 
nothing  can  dissolve  these  relations  but 
revolution;  and  that,  therefore,  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession  without 
revolution.  All  this  follows,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  as  a  just  consequence,  if  it  be 
first  proved  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  a  government  proper, 
owing  protection  to  individuals,  and  en 
titled  to  their  obedience. 

The  people,  Sir,  in  every  State,  live 
under  two  governments.  They  owe 
obedience  to  both.  These  governments, 
though  distinct,  are  not  adverse.  Each 
has  its  separate  sphere,  and  its  peculiar 
powers  and  duties.  It  is  not  a  contest 
between  two  sovereigns  for  the  same 
power,  like  the  wars  of  the  rival  houses 
iii  England ;  nor  is  it  a  dispute  between 


a  government  de  facto  and  a  govern 
ment  de  jure.  It  is  the  case  of  a  divis 
ion  of  powers  between  two  governments, 
made  by  the  people,  to  whom  both  are 
responsible.  Neither  can  dispense  with 
the  duty  which  individuals  owe  to  the 
other;  neither  can  call  itself  master  of 
the  otfcer:  the  people  are  masters  of 
both.  This  division  of  power,  it  is  true, 
is  in  a  great  measure  unknown  in  Europe. 
It  is  the  peculiar  system  of  America; 
and,  though  new  and  singular,  it  is  not 
incomprehensible.  The  State  constitu 
tions  are  established  by  the  people  ol 
the  States.  This  Constitution  is  estab 
lished  by  the  people  of  all  the  States. 
How,  then,  can  a  State  secede?  How 
can  a  State  undo  what  the  whole  people 
have  done?  How  can  she  absolve  her 
citizens  from  their  obedience  to  the  laws 
of  the  United  States?  How  can  she  annul 
their  obligations  and  oaths?  How  can 
the  members  of  her  legislature  renounce 
their  own  oaths?  Sir,  secession,  as  a 
revolutionary  right,  is  intelligible;  as  a 
right  to  be  proclaimed  in  the  midst  of 
civil  commotions,  and  asserted  at  the 
head  of  armies.  I  can  understand  it. 
But  as  a  practical  right,  existing  under 
the  Constitution,  and  in  conformity  with 
its  provisions,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  noth 
ing  but  a  plain  absurdity;  for  it  sup 
poses  resistance  to  government,  under 
the  authority  of  government  itself;  it 
supposes  dismemberment,  without  vio 
lating  the  principles  of  union;  it  sup 
poses  opposition  to  law,  without  crime; 
it  supposes  the  violation  of  oaths,  with 
out  responsibility ;  it  supposes  the  total 
overthrow  of  government,  without  revo 
lution. 

The  Constitution,  Sir,  regards  itself 
as  perpetual  and  immortal.  It  seeks  to 
establish  a  union  among  the  people  of 
the  States,  which  shall  last  through  all 
time.  Or,  if  the  common  fate  of  things 
human  must  be  expected  at  some  period 
to  happen  to  it,  yet  that  catastrophe  is 
not  anticipated. 

The  instrument  contains  ample  pro 
visions  for  its  amendment,  at  all  times; 
none  for  its  abandonment,  at  any  time. 
It  declares  that  new  States  may  come 
into  the  Union,  but  it  does  not  declare 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


291 


that  old  States  may  go  out.  The  Union 
is  not  a  temporary  partnership  of  States. 
It  is  the  association  of  the  people,  under 
a  constitution  of  government,  uniting 
their  power,  joining  together  their  high 
est  interests,  cementing  their  present 
enjoyments,  and  blending,  in  one  indi 
visible  mass,  all  their  hopes  for  the  fu 
ture.  Whatsoever  is  steadfast  in  just 
political  principles;  whatsoever  is  per 
manent  in  the  structure  of  human  so 
ciety;  whatsoever  there  is  which  can 
derive  an  enduring  character  from  being 
founded  on  deep-laid  principles  of  con 
stitutional  liberty  and  on  the  broad 
foundations  of  the  public  will,  —  all 
these  unite  to  entitle  this  instrument  to 
be  regarded  as  a  permanent  constitution 
of  government. 

In  the  next  place,  Mr.  President,  I 
contend  that  there  is  a  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  consisting  of  the  Constitution, 
acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of 
it,  and  the  public  treaties.  This  will 
not  be  denied,  because  such  are  the  very 
words  of  the  Constitution.  But  I  con 
tend,  further,  that  it  rightfully  belongs 
to  Congress,  and  to  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  to  settle  the  construction 
of  this  supreme  law,  in  doubtful  cases. 
This  is  denied;  and  here  arises  the  gpeat 
practical  question.  Who  is  to  construe 
finally  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ?  We  all  agree  that  the  Constitu 
tion  is  the  supreme  law ;  but  who  shall 
interpret  that  law?  In  our  system  of 
the  division  of  powers  between  different 
governments,  controversies  will  neces 
sarily  sometimes  arise,  respecting  the 
extent  of  the  powers  of  each.  Who 
shall  decide  these  controversies?  Does 
it  rest  with  the  general  government,  in 
all  or  any  of  its  departments,  to  exercise 
the  office  of  final  interpreter?  Or  may 
each  of  the  States,  as  well  as  the  gen 
eral  government,  claim  this  right  of  ul 
timate  decision?  The  practical  result 
of  this  whole  debate  turns  on  this  point. 
The  gentleman  contends  that  each  State 
may  judge  for  itself  of  any  alleged  vio 
lation  of  the  Constitution,  and  may 
finally  decide  for  itself,  and  may  exe 
cute  its  own  decisions  by  its  own  power. 
All  the  recent  proceedings  in  South  Caro 


lina  are  founded  on  this  claim  of  right. 
Her  convention  has  pronounced  the  rev 
enue  laws  of  the  United  States  uncon 
stitutional;  and  this  decision  she  does 
not  allow  any  authority  of  the  United 
States  to  overrule  or  reverse.  Of  course 
she  rejects  the  authority  of  Congress, 
because  the  very  object  of  the  ordinance 
is  to  reverse  the  decision  of  Congress; 
and  she  rejects,  too,  the  authority  of  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  because  she 
expressly  prohibits  all  appeal  to  those 
courts.  It  is  in  order  to  sustain  this  as 
serted  right  of  being  her  own  judge,  that 
she  pronounces  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  be  but  a  compact,  to 
which  she  is  a  party,  and  a  sovereign 
party.  If  this  be  established,  then  the 
inference  is  supposed  to  follow,  that, 
being  sovereign,  there  is  no  power  to 
control  her  decision;  and  her  own  judg 
ment  on  her  own  compact  is,  and  must 
be,  conclusive. 

I  have  already  endeavored,  Sir,  to 
point  out  the  practical  consequences  of 
this  doctrine,  and  to  show  how  utterly 
inconsistent  it  is  with  all  ideas  of  reg 
ular  government,  and  how  soon  its  adop 
tion  would  involve  the  whole  country  in 
revolution  and  absolute  anarchy.  I  hope 
it  is  easy  now  to  show,  Sir,  that  a  doc 
trine  bringing  such  consequences  with  it 
is  not  well  founded;  that  it  has  nothing 
to  stand  on  but  theory  and  assumption ; 
and  that  it  is  refuted  by  plain  and  ex 
press  constitutional  provisions.  I  think 
the  government  of  the  United  Sta'tes 
does  possess,  in  its  appropriate  depart 
ments,  the  authority  of  final  decision  on 
questions  of  disputed  power.  I  think 
it  possesses  this  authority,  both  by 
necessary  implication  and  by  express 
grant. 

It  will  not  be  denied,  Sir,  that  this 
authority  naturally  belongs  to  all  gov 
ernments.  They  all  exercise  it  from 
necessity,  and  as  a  consequence  of  the 
exercise  of  other  powers.  The  State 
governments  themselves  possess  it,  ex 
cept  in  that  class  of  questions  which 
may  arise  between  them  and  the  gen 
eral  government,  and  in  regard  to  which 
they  have  surrendered  it,  as  well  by  the 
nature  of  the  case  as  bv  clear  constitu- 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT   A   COMPACT 


tional  provisions.  In  other  and  ordi 
nary  cases,  whether  a  particular  law  be 
in  conformity  to  the  constitution  of  the 
State  is  a  question  Tvhich  the  State  legis 
lature  or  the  State  judiciary  must  del  er 
mine.  AVe  all  know  that  these  questions 
arise  daily  in  the  State  governments,  and 
are  decided  by  those  governments;  and 
I  know  no  government  which  does  not 
exercise  a  similar  power. 

Upon  general  principles,  then,  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  possesses 
this  authority;  and  this  would  hardly  be 
denied  were  it  not  that  there  are  other 
governments.  Hut  since  there  are  State 
governments,  and  since  these,  like  other 
governments,  ordinarily  construe  their 
own  powers,  if  the  government  of  the 
United  States  construes  its  own  powers 
also,  which  construction  is  to  prevail  in 
the  case  of  opposite  constructions  ?  And 
again,  as  in  the  case  now  actually  before 
us,  the  State  governments  may  under 
take,  not  only  to  construe  their  own 
powers,  but  to  decide  directly  on  the 
extent  of  the  powers  of  Congress.  Con 
gress  has  passed  a  law  as  being  within 
its  just  powers:  South  Carolina  denies 
that  this  law  is  within  its  just  powers, 
and  insists  that  she  has  the  right  so  to 
decide  this  point,  and  that  her  decision 
is  final.  How  are  these  questions  to  be 
settled  ? 

In  my  opinion.  Sir,  even  if  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  had  made 
no  express  provision  for  such  cases,  it 
would  yet  be  difficult  to  maintain,  that, 
in  a  Constitution  existing  over  four-and- 
twenty  States,  with  equal  authority  over 
all.  one  could  claim  a  right  of  construing 
it  for  the  whole.  This  would  seem  a 
manifest  impropriety:  indeed,  an  ab 
surdity.  If  the  Constitution  is  a  gov 
ernment  existing  over  all  the  States, 
though  with  limited  powers,  it  necessa 
rily  follows,  that,  to  the  extent  of  those 
powers,  it  must  be  supreme.  If  it  be 
not  superior  to  the  authority  of  a  partic 
ular  State,  it  is  not  a  national  govern 
ment.  But  as  it  is  a  government,  as  it 
has  a  legislative  power  of  its  own,  and  a 
judicial  power  coextensive  with  the  legis-  j 
lative,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  ' 
this  government,  thus  created  by  the 


whole  and  for  the  whole,  must  have  an 
authority  superior  to  that  of  the  partic 
ular  government  of  any  one  part.  Con 
gress  is  the  legislature  of  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States;  the  judiciary  of 
the  general  government  is  the  judiciary 
of  al^the  people  of  the  United  States. 
To  hold,  therefore,  that  this  legislature 
and  this  judiciary  are  subordinate  in  au- 
thority  to  the  legislature  and  judiciary 
of  a  single  State,  is  doing  violence  to 
all  common  sense,  and  overturning  all 
established  principles.  Congress  must 
judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers 
so  often  as  it  is  called  on  to  exercise 
them,  or  it  cannot  act  at  all;  and  it 
must  also  act  independent  of  State  con 
trol,  or  it  cannot  act  at  all. 

The  right  of  State  interposition  strikes 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  legislative 
power  of  Congress.  It  possesses  no  ef 
fective  legislative  power,  if  such  right  of 
State  interposition  existxs:  because  it  can 
pass  no  law  not  subject  to  abrogation. 
It  cannot  make  laws  for  the  Union,  if 
any  part  of  the  Union  may  pronounce 
its  enactments  void  and  of  no  effect. 
Its  forms  of  legislation  would  be  an  idle 
ceremony,  if,  after  all,  any  one  of  four- 
ami-twenty  States  might  bid  defiance  to 
its  authority.  Without  express  provis 
ion  in  the  Constitution,  therefore,  Sir, 
this  whole  question  is  necessarily  decided 
by  those  provisions  which  create  a  legis 
lative  power  and  a  judicial  power.  If 
these  exist  in  a  government  intended  for 
the  whole,  the  inevitable  consequence  is, 
that  the  laws  of  this  legislative  power 
and  the  decisions  of  this  judicial  power 
must  be  binding  on  and  over  the  whole. 
No  man  can  form  the  conception  of 
a  government  existing  over  four-and- 
twenty  States,  with  a  regular  legislative 
and  judicial  power,  and  of  the  existence 
at  the  same  time  of  an  authority,  resid 
ing  elsewhere,  to  resist,  at  pleasure  or 
discretion,  the  enactments  and  the  de 
cisions  of  such  a  government.  I  main 
tain,  therefore,  Sir,  that,  from  the  na 
ture  of  the  case,  and  as  an  inference 
wholly  unavoidable,  the  acts  of  Congress 
and  the  decisions  of  the  national  courts 
must  be  of  higher  authority  than  State 
laws  and  State  decisions.  If  this  be  not 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


293 


so,  there  is,  there  can  be,  no  general 
government. 

But,  Mr.  President,  the  Constitution 
has  not  left  this  cardinal  point  without 
full  and  explicit  provisions.  First,  as 
to  the  authority  of  Congress.  Having 
enumerated  the  specific  powers  con 
ferred  on  Congress,  the  Constitution 
adds,  as  a  distinct  and  substantive 
clause,  the  following,  viz.:  "To  make 
all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the 
foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers 
vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any 
department  or  officer  thereof."  If  this 
means  any  thing,  it  means  that  Con 
gress  may  judge  of  the  true  extent  and 
just  interpretation  of  the  specific  powers 
granted  to  it,  and  may  judge  also  of 
what  is  necessary  and  proper  for  exe 
cuting  those  powers.  If  Congress  is  to 
judge  of  what  is  necessary  for  the  execu 
tion  of  its  powers,  it  must,  of  necessity, 
judge  of  the  extent  and  interpretation  of 
those  powers. 

And  in  regard,  Sir,  to  the  judiciary, 
the  Constitution  is  still  more  express 
and  emphatic.  It  declares  that  the  ju 
dicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in 
law  or  equity  arising  under  the  Consti 
tution,  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
treaties ;  that  there  shall  be  one  Supreme 
Court,  and  that  this  Supreme  Court  shall 
have  appellate  jurisdiction  of  all  these 
cases,  subject  to  such  exceptions  as  Con 
gress  may  make.  It  is  impossible  to 
escape  from  the  generality  of  these 
words.  If  a  case  arises  under  the  Con 
stitution,  that  is,  if  a  case  arises  de 
pending  on  the  construction  of  the  Con 
stitution  ,  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  extends  to  it.  It  reaches  the  case, 
the  question;  it  attaches  the  power  of  the 
national  judicature  to  the  case  itself,  in 
whatever  court  it  may  arise  or  exist; 
arid  in  this  case  the  Supreme  Court  has 
appellate  jurisdiction  over  all  courts 
whatever.  No  language  could  provide 
with  more  effect  and  precision  than  is 
here  done,  for  subjecting  constitutional 
questions  to  the  ultimate  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court.  And,  Sir,  this  is 
exactlv  what  the  Convention  found  it, 


necessary  to  provide  for,  and  intended  to 
provide  for.  It  is,  too,  exactly  what  the 
people  were  universally  told  was  done 
when  they  adopted*  the  Constitution. 
One  of  the  first  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Convention  was  in  these  words,  viz. : 
"  That  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national 
judiciary  shall  extend  to  cases  which  re 
spect  the  collection  of  the  national  revenue, 
and  questions  which  involve  the  national 
peace  and  harmony."  Now,  Sir,  this 
either  had  no  sensible  meaning  at  all,  or 
else  it  meant  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
national  judiciary  should  extend  to  these 
questions,  with  a  paramount  authority. 
It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Con 
vention  intended  that  the  power  of  the 
national  judiciary  should  extend  to  these 
questions,  and  that  the  power  of  the  ju 
dicatures  of  the  States  should  also  ex 
tend  to  them,  with  equal  power  of  final 
decision.  This  would  be  to  defeat  the 
whole  object  of  the  provision.  There 
were  thirteen  judicatures  already  in  ex 
istence.  The  evil  complained  of,  or  the 
danger  to  be  guarded  against,  was  con 
tradiction  and  repugnance  in  the  de 
cisions  of  these  judicatures.  If  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  meant  to 
create  a  fourteenth,  and  yet  not  to  give 
it  power  to  revise  and  control  the  decis 
ions  of  the  existing  thirteen,  then  they 
only  intended  to  augment  the  existing 
evil  and  the  apprehended  danger  by  in 
creasing  still  further  the  chances  of  dis 
cordant  judgments.  Why,  Sir,  has  it 
become  a  settled  axiom  in  politics  that 
every  government  must  have  a  judicial 
power  coextensive  with  its  legislative 
power  ?  Certainly,  there  is  only  this 
reason,  namely,  that  the  laws  may  re 
ceive  a  uniform  interpretation  and  a 
uniform  execution.  This  object  cannot 
be  otherwise  attained.  A  statute  is  what 
it  is  judicially  interpreted  to  be;  and  if 
it  be  construed  one  way  in  New  Hamp 
shire,  and  another  way  in  Georgia,  there 
is  no  uniform  law.  One  supreme  court, 
with  appellate  and  final  jurisdiction,  is 
the  natural  and  only  adequate  means,  in 
any  government,  to  secure  this  uniform 
ity.  The  Convention  saw  all  this  clearly ; 
and  the  resolution  which  I  have  quot- 
p.d.  rmvpr  afterwards  rp.sp.inded.  Dassed 


294 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT   A  COMPACT 


through  various  modifications,  till  it 
finally  received  the  form  which  the  ar 
ticle  now  bears  in  the  Constitution. 

It  is  undeniably  true,  then,  that  the 
frarners  of  the  Constitution  intended  to 
create  a  national  judicial  power,  \vhich 
should  be  paramount  on  national  sub 
jects.  And  after  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  and  while  the  whole  country 
was  engaged  in  discussing  its  merits, 
one  of  its  most  distinguished  advocates, 
Mr.  Madison,  told  the  people  that  it 
was  true,  that,  in  controversies  relating  to 
the  boundary  between  the  two  jurisdictions, 
the  tribunal  which  is  ultimately  to  decide 
is  to  be  established  under  the  general  gov 
ernment.  Mr.  Martin,  who  had  been  a 
member  of  the  Convention,  asserted  the 
same  thing  to  the  legislature  of  Mary 
land,  and  urged  it  as  a  reason  for  re 
jecting  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Pinck- 
ney,  himself  also  a  leading  member 
of  the  Convention,  declared  it  to  the 
people  of  South  Carolina.  Everywhere 
it  was  admitted,  by  friends  and  foes, 
that  this  power  was  in  the  Constitution. 
By  some  it  was  thought  dangerous,  by 
most  it  was  thought  necessary;  but  by 
all  it  was  agreed  to  be  a  power  actually 
contained  in  the  instrument.  The  Con 
vention  saw  the  absolute  necessity  of 
some  control  in  the  national  govern 
ment  over  State  laws.  Different  modes 
of  establishing  this  control  were  sug 
gested  and  considered.  At  one  time,  it 
was  proposed  that  the  laws  of  the 
States  should,  from  time  to  time,  be 
laid  before  Congress,  and  that  Congress 
should  possess  a  negative  over  them. 
But  this  was  thought  inexpedient  and 
inadmissible;  and  in  its  place,  and  ex 
pressly  as  a  substitute  for  it,  the  exist 
ing  provision  was  introduced ;  that  is  to 
say,  a  provision  by  which  the  federal 
courts  should  have  authority  to  overrule 
such  State  laws  as  might  be  in  man 
ifest  contravention  of  the  Constitution. 
The  writers  of  the  Federalist,  in  ex 
plaining  the  Constitution,  while  it  was 
yet  pending  before  the  people,  and  still 
unadopted,  give  this  account  of  the 
matter  in  terms,  and  assign  this  reason 
for  the  article  as  it  now  stands.  By 
this  provision  Congress  escaped  the  ne 


cessity  of  any  revision  of  State  laws, 
left  the  whole  sphere  of  State  legisla 
tion  quite  untouched,  and  yet  obtained 
a  security  against  any  infringement  of 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  general 
government.  Indeed,  Sir,  allow  me  to 
ask  again,  if  the  national  judiciary  was 
not  to  exercise  a  power  of  revision  on 
constitutional  questions  over  the  judica 
tures  of  the  States,  why  was  any  na 
tional  judicature  erected  at  all?  Can 
any  man  give  a  sensible  reason  for  hav 
ing  a  judicial  power  in  this  government, 
unless  it  be  for  the  sake  of  maintaining 
a  uniformity  of  decision  on  questions 
arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  Congress,  and  insuring  its  execution? 
And  does  not  this  very  idea  of  uni 
formity  necessarily  imply  that  the  con 
struction  given  by  the  national  courts 
is  to  be  the  prevailing  construction? 
How  else,  Sir,  is  it  possible  that  uni 
formity  can  be  preserved? 

Gentlemen  appear  to  me,  Sir,  to  look 
at  but  one  side  of  the  question.  They 
regard  only  the  supposed  danger  of 
trusting  a  government  with  the  inter 
pretation  of  its  own  powers.  But  will 
they  view  the  question  in  its  other  as 
pect?  Will  they  show  us  how  it  is 
possible  for  a  government  to  get  along 
with  four-and-twenty  interpreters  of  its 
laws  and  powers?  Gentlemen  argue, 
too,  as  if,  in  these  cases,  the  State 
would  be  always  right,  and  the  general 
government  always  wrong.  But  sup 
pose  the  reverse,  —  suppose  the  State 
wrong  (and,  since  they  differ,  some  of 
them  must  be  wrong) ,  —  are  the  most 
important  and  essential  operations  of 
the  government  to  be  embarrassed  and 
arrested,  because  one  State  holds  the 
contrary  opinion?  Mr.  President,  every 
argument  which  refers  the  constitution 
ality  of  acts  of  Congress  to  State  de 
cision  appeals  from  the  majority  to  the 
minority;  it  appeals  from  the  common 
interest  to  a  particular  interest;  from 
the  counsels  of  all  to  the  counsel  of  one ; 
and  endeavors  to  supersede  the  judg 
ment  of  the  whole  by  the  judgment  of  a 
part. 

I  think  it  is  clear,  Sir,  that  the  Con 
stitution,  by  express  provision,  by  defi- 


BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


295 


nite  and  unequivocal  words,  as  well  as 
by  necessary  implication,  has  consti 
tuted  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  the  appellate  tribunal  in  all  cases 
of  a  constitutional  nature  which  assume 
the  shape  of  a  suit,  in  law  or  equity. 
And  I  think  I  cannot  do  better  than  to 
Jeave  this  part  of  the  subject  by  reading 
the  remarks  made  upon  it  in  the  con 
vention  of  Connecticut,  by  Mr.  Ells 
worth;  a  gentleman,  Sir,  who  has  left 
behind  him,  on  the  records  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  his  country,  proofs  of  the 
clearest  intelligence  and  of  the  deepest 
sagacity,  as  well  as  of  the  utmost  purity 
and  integrity  of  character.  "  This  Con 
stitution,"  says  he,  "  defines  the  extent 
of  the  powers  of  the  general  govern 
ment.  If  the  general  legislature  should, 
at  any  time,  overleap  their  limits,  the 
judicial  department  is  a  constitutional 
check.  If  the  United  States  go  beyond 
their  powers,  if  they  make  a  law  which 
the  Constitution  does  not  authorize,  it 
is  void;  and  the  judiciary  power,  the 
national  judges,  who,  to  secure  their 
impartiality,  are  to  be  made  indepen 
dent,  will  declare  it  to  be  void.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  States  go  beyond 
their  limits,  if  they  make  a  law  which 
is  a  usurpation  upon  the  general  gov 
ernment,  the  law  is  void;  and  upright, 
independent  judges  will  declare  it  to 
be  so."  Nor  did  this  remain  merely 
matter  of  private  opinion.  In  the  very 
first  session  of  the  first  Congress,  with 
all  these  well-known  objects,  both  of 
the  Convention  and  the  people,  full  and 
fresh  in  his  mind,  Mr.  Ellsworth,  as  is 
generally  understood,  reported  the  bill 
for  the  organization  of  the  judicial  de 
partment,  and  in  that  bill  made  pro 
vision  for  the  exercise  of  this  appellate 
power  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  all  the 
proper  cases,  in  whatsoever  court  aris 
ing;  and  this  appellate  power  has  now 
been  exercised  for  more  than  forty 
years,  without  interruption,  and  with 
out  doubt. 

As  to  the  cases,  Sir,  which  do  not 
come  before  the  courts,  those  political 
questions  which  terminate  with  the  en 
actments  of  Congress,  it  is  of  necessity 
that  these  should  be  ultimately  decided 


by  Congress  itself.  Like  other  legisla 
tures,  it  must  be  trusted  with  this 
power.  The  members  of  Congress  are 
chosen  by  the  people,  and  they  are  an 
swerable  to  the  people ;  like  other  public 
agents,  they  are  bound  by  oath  to  sup 
port  the  Constitution.  These  are  the 
securities  that  they  will  not  violate  their 
duty,  nor  transcend  their  powers.  They 
are  the  same  securities  that  prevail  in 
other  popular  governments;  nor  is  it 
easy  to  see  how  grants  of  power  can  be 
more  safely  guarded,  without  rendering 
them  nugatory.  If  the  case  cannot  come 
before  the  courts,  and  if  Congress  be  not 
trusted  with  its  decision,  who  shall  de 
cide  it?  The  gentleman  says,  each  State 
is  to  decide  it  for  herself.  If  so,  then, 
as  I  have  already  urged,  what  is  law  in 
one  State  is  not  law  in  another.  Or,  if 
the  resistance  of  one  State  compels  an 
entire  repeal  of  the  law,  then  a  minor 
ity,  and  that  a  small  one,  governs  the 
whole  country. 

Sir,  those  who  espouse  the  doctrines 
of  nullification  reject,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  the  first  great  principle  of  all  re 
publican  liberty;  that  is,  that  the  ma 
jority  must  govern.  In  matters  of  com 
mon  concern,  the  judgment  of  a  majority 
must  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  whole. 
This  is  a  law  imposed  on  us  by  the  ab 
solute  necessity  of  the  case ;  and  if  we 
do  not  act  upon  it,  there  is  no  possibil 
ity  of  maintaining  any  government  but 
despotism.  We  hear  loud  and  repeated 
denunciations  against  what  is  called 
majority  government.  It  is  declared, 
with  much  warmth,  that  a  majority 
government  cannot  be  maintained  in 
the  United  States.  What,  then,  do  gen 
tlemen  wish?  Do  they  wish  to  establish 
a  minority  government?  Do  they  wish 
to  subject  the  will  of  the  many  to  the 
will  of  the  few?  The  honorable  gentle 
man  from  South  Carolina  has  spoken  of 
absolute  majorities  and  majorities  con 
current;  language  wholly  unknown  to 
our  Constitution,  and  to  which  it  is  not 
easy  to  affix  definite  ideas.  As  far  as  I 
understand  it,  it  would  teach  us  that  the 
absolute  majority  may  be  found  in  Con 
gress,  but  the  majority  concurrent  must 
be  looked  for  in  the  States ;  that  is  to 


296 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


say,  Sir,  stripping  the  matter  of  this 
novelty  of  phrase,  that  the  dissent  of 
one  or  more  States,  as  States,  renders 
void  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  Con 
gress,  so  far  as  that  State  is  concerned. 
And  so  this  doctrine,  running  but  a 
short  career,  like  other  dogmas  of  the 
day,  terminates  in  nullification. 

If  this  vehement  invective  against 
majorities  meant  no  more  than  that,  in 
the  construction  of  government,  it  is 
wise  to  provide  checks  and  balances,  so 
that  there  should  be  various  limitations 
on  the  power  of  the  mere  majority,  it 
would  only  mean  what  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  has  already  abun 
dantly  provided.  It  is  full  of  such 
checks  and  balances.  In  its  very  or 
ganization,  it  adopts  a  broad  and  most 
effective  principle  in  restraint  of  the 
power  of  mere  majorities.  A  majority 
of  the  people  elects  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  but  it  does  not  elect  the 
Senate.  The  Senate  is  elected  by  the 
States,  each  State  having,  in  this  respect, 
an  equal  power.  No  law,  therefore,  can 
pass,  without  the  assent  of  the  represent 
atives  of  the  people,  and  a  majority  of 
the  representatives  of  the  States  also. 
A  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people  must  concur,  and  a  majority  of 
the  States  must  concur,  in  every  act  of 
Congress ;  and  the  President  is  elected 
on  a  plan  compounded  of  both  these  prin 
ciples.  But  having  composed  one  house 
of  representatives  chosen  by  the  people 
in  each  State,  according  to  their  num 
bers,  and  the  other  of  an  equal  number 
of  members  from  every  State,  whether 
larger  or  smaller,  the  Constitution  gives 
to  majorities  in  these  houses  thus  con 
stituted  the  full  and  entire  power  of 
passing  laws,  subject  always  to  the  con 
stitutional  restrictions  and  to  the  ap 
proval  of  the  President.  To  subject 
them  to  any  other  power  is  clear  usurpa 
tion.  The  majority  of  one  house  may 
be  controlled  by  the  majority  of  the 
other;  and  both  may  be  restrained  by 
the  President's  negative.  These  are 
checks  and  balances  provided  by  the 
Constitution,  existing  in  the  govern 
ment  itself,  and  wisely  intended  to 
secure  deliberation  and  caution  in  legis 


lative  proceedings.  But  to  resist  the 
will  of  the  majority  in  both  houses,  thus 
constitutionally  exercised;  to  insist  on 
the  lawfulness  of  interposition  by  an 
extraneous  power ;  to  claim  the  right  of 
defeating  the  will  of  Congress,  by  set 
ting  up  Against  it  the  will  of  a  single 
State,  —  is  neither  more  nor  less,  as  it 
strikes  me,  than  a  plain  attempt  to 
overthrow  the  government.  The  con 
stituted  authorities  of  the  United  States 
are  no  longer  a  government,  if  they  be 
not  masters  of  their  own  will ;  they  are 
no  longer  a  government,  if  an  external 
power  may  arrest  their  proceedings; 
they  are  no  longer  a  government,  if  acts 
passed  by  both  houses,  and  approved  by 
the  President,  may  be  nullified  by  State 
vetoes  or  State  ordinances.  Does  any 
one  suppose  it  could  make  any  differ 
ence,  as  to  the  binding  authority  of  an 
act  of  Congress,  and  of  the  duty  of  a 
State  to  respect  it,  whether  it  passed  by 
a  mere  majority  of  both  houses,  or  by 
three  fourths  of  each,  or  the  unanimous 
vote  of  each?  Within  the  limits  and 
restrictions  of  the  Constitution,  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  like  all 
other  popular  governments,  acts  by 
majorities.  It  can  act  no  otherwise. 
Whoever,  therefore,  denounces  the  gov 
ernment  of  majorities,  denounces  the 
government  of  his  own  country,  and 
denounces  all  free  governments.  And 
whoever  would  restrain  these  majorities, 
while  acting  within  their  constitutional 
limits,  by  an  external  power,  whatever 
he  may  intend,  asserts  principles  which, 
if  adopted,  can  lead  to  nothing  else 
than  the  destruction  of  the  government 
itself. 

Does  not  the  gentleman  perceive,  Sir, 
how  his  argument  against  majorities 
might  here  be  retorted  upon  him?  Does 
he  not  see  how  cogently  he  might  be 
asked,  whether  it  be  the  character  of  nul 
lification  to  practise  what  it  preaches? 
Look  to  South  Carolina,  at  the  present 
moment.  How  far  are  the  rights  of 
minorities  there  respected?  I  confess, 
Sir,  I  have  not  known,  in  peaceable 
times,  the  power  of  the  majority  carried 
with  a  higher  hand,  or  upheld  with 
more  relentless  disregard  of  the  rights, 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


297 


feelings,  and  principles  of  the  minority; 
—  a  minority  embracing,  as  the  gentle 
man  himself  will  admit,  a  large  portion 
of  the  worth  and  respectability  of  the 
State ;  —  a  minority  comprehending  in  its 
numbers  men  who  have  been  associated 
with  him,  and  with  us,  in  these  halls  of 
legislation ;  men  who  have  served  their 
country  at  home  and  honored  it  abroad; 
men  who  would  cheerfully  lay  down 
their  lives  for  their  native  State,  in  any 
cause  which  they  could  regard  as  the 
cause  of  honor  and  duty;  men  above 
fear,  and  above  reproach,  whose  deepest 
grief  and  distress  spring  from  the  con 
viction,  that  the  present  proceedings  of 
the  State  must  ultimately  reflect  discredit 
upon  her.  How  is  this  minority,  how 
are  these  men,  regarded?  They  are  en 
thralled  and  disfranchised  by  ordinances 
and  acts  of  legislation;  subjected  to  tests 
and  oaths,  incompatible,  as  they  con 
scientiously  think,  with  oaths  already 
taken,  and  obligations  already  assumed; 
they  are  proscribed  and  denounced  as 
recreants  to  duty  and  patriotism,  and 
slaves  to  a  foreign  power.  Both  the 
spirit  which  pursues  them,  and  the  posi 
tive  measures  which  emanate  from  that 
spirit,  are  harsh  and  prescriptive  beyond 
all  precedent  within  my  knowledge,  ex 
cept  in  periods  of  professed  revolution. 

It  is  not,  Sir,  one  would  think,  for 
those  who  approve  these  proceedings  to 
complain  of  the  power  of  majorities. 

Mr.  President,  all  popular  govern 
ments  rest  on  two  principles,  or  two 
assumptions :  — 

First,  That  there  is  so  far  a  common 
interest  among  those  over  wThom  the 
government  extends,  as  that  it  may  pro 
vide  for  the  defence,  protection,  and 
good  government  of  the  whole,  without 
injustice  or  oppression  to  parts;  and 

Secondly,  That  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  and  especially  the  people 
themselves,  are  secure  against  general 
corruption,  and  may  be  trusted,  there 
fore,  with  the  exercise  of  power. 

Whoever  argues  against  these  princi 
ples  argues  against  the  practicability  of 
all  free  governments.  And  whoever 
admits  these,  must  admit,  or  cannot 
deny,  that  power  is  as  safe  in  the  hands 


of  Congress  as  in  those  of  other  repre 
sentative  bodies.  Congress  is  not  irre 
sponsible.  Its  members  are  agents  of  the 
people,  elected  by  them,  answerable  to 
them,  and  liable  to  be  displaced  or  super 
seded,  at  their  pleasure ;  and  they  possess 
as  fair  a  claim  to  the  confidence  of  the 
people,  while  they  continue  to  deserve  it, 
as  any  other  public  political  agents. 

If,  then,  Sir,  the  manifest  intention 
of  the  Convention,  and  the  contempo 
rary  admission  of  both  friends  and  foes, 
prove  any  thing;  if  the  plain  text  of  the 
instrument  itself,  as  well  as  the  neces 
sary  implication  from  other  provisions, 
prove  any  thing;  if  the  early  legislation 
of  Congress,  the  course  of  judicial  decis 
ions,  acquiesced  in  by  all  the  States  for 
forty  years,  prove  any  thing,  —  then  it 
is  proved  that  there  is  a  supreme  law, 
and  a  final  interpreter. 

My  fourth  and  last  proposition,  Mr. 
President,  was,  that  any  attempt  by  a 
State  to  abrogate  or  nullify  acts  of  Con 
gress  is  a  usurpation  on  the  powers  of 
the  general  government  and  on  the 
equal  rights  of  other  States,  a  violation 
of  the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding 
essentially  revolutionary.  This  is  un 
doubtedly  true,  if  the  preceding  propo 
sitions  be  regarded  as  proved.  If  the 
government  of  the  United  States  be 
trusted  with  the  duty,  in  any  depart 
ment,  of  declaring  the  extent  of  its  own 
powers,  then  a  State  ordinance,  or  act 
of  legislation,  authorizing  resistance  to 
an  act  of  Congress,  on  the  alleged  ground 
of  its  unconstitutionality,  is  manifestly 
a  usurpation  upon  its  powers.  If  the 
States  have  equal  rights  in  matters  con 
cerning  the  whole,  then  for  one  State  to 
set  up  her  judgment  against  the  judg 
ment  of  the  rest,  and  to  insist  on  execut 
ing  that  judgment  by  force,  is  also  a 
manifest  usurpation  on  the  rights  of 
other  States.  If  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  be  a  government  proper, 
with  authority  to  pass  laws,  and  to  give 
them  a  uniform  interpretation  and  exe 
cution,  then  the  interposition  of  a  State, 
to  enforce  her  own  construction,  and  to 
resist,  as  to  herself,  that  law  which 
binds  the  other  States,  is  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution. 


298 


THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


If  that  be  revolutionary  which  arrests 
the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
power  of  government,  dispenses  with 
existing  oaths  and  obligations  of  obedi 
ence,  and  elevates  another  power  to  su 
preme  dominion,  then  nullification  is 
revolutionary.  Or  if  that  be  revolution 
ary  the  natural  tendency  and  practical 
effect  of  which  are  to  break  the  Union 
into  fragments,  to  sever  all  connection 
among  the  people  of  the  respective 
States,  and  to  prostrate  this  general 
government  in  the  dust,  then  nullifica 
tion  is  revolutionary. 

Nullification,  Sir,  is  as  distinctly  rev 
olutionary  as  secession ;  but  I  cannot 
say  that  the  revolution  which  it  seeks  is 
one  of  so  respectable  a  character.  Se 
cession  would,  it  is  true,  abandon  the 
Constitution  altogether;  but  then  it 
would  profess  to  abandon  it.  What 
ever  other  inconsistencies  it  might  run 
into,  one,  at  least,  it  would  avoid.  It 
wrould  not  belong  to  a  government, 
while  it  rejected  its  authority.  It  would 
not  repel  the  burden,  and  continue  to 
enjoy  the  benefits.  It  would  not  aid  in 
passing  laws  which  others  are  to  obey, 
and  yet  reject  their  authority  as  to 
itself.  It  would  riot  undertake  to  rec 
oncile  obedience  to  public  authority 
with  an  asserted  right  of  command  over 
that  same  authority.  It  would  not  be  in 
the  government,  and  above  the  govern 
ment,  at  the  same  time.  But  though 
secession  may  be  a  more  respectable 
mode  of  attaining  the  object  than  nullifi 
cation,  it  is  not  more  truly  revolutionary. 
Each,  and  both,  resist  the  constitutional 
authorities;  each,  and  both,  would  sever 
the  Union  and  subvert  the  government. 

Mr.  President,  having  detained  the 
Senate  so  long  already,  I  will  not  now 
examine  at  length  the  ordinance  and 
laws  of  South  Carolina.  These  papers 
are  well  drawn  for  their  purpose.  Their 
authors  understood  their  own  objects. 
They  are  called  a  peaceable  remedy,  and 
we  have  been  told  that  South  Carolina, 
after  all,  intends  nothing  but  a  lawsuit. 
A  very  few  words,  Sir,  will  show  the 
nature  of  this  peaceable  remedy,  and  of 
the  lawsuit  which  South  Carolina  con 
templates. 


In  the  first  place,  the  ordinance  de 
clares  the  law  of  last  July,  and  all  other 
laws  of  the  United  States  laying  duties, 
to  be  absolutely  null  and  void,  and 
makes  it  unlawful  for  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  United  States  to  en 
force  trie  payment  of  such  duties.  It  is 
therefore,  Sir,  an  indictable  offence,  at 
this  moment,  in  South  Carolina,  for  any 
person  to  be  concerned  in  collecting 
revenue  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States.  It  being  declared,  by  wrhat  is 
considered  a  fundamental  law  of  the 
State,  unlawful  to  collect  these  duties, 
an  indictment  lies,  of  course,  against 
any  one  concerned  in  such  collection; 
and  he  is,  on  general  principles,  liable 
to  be  punished  by  fine  and  imprison 
ment.  The  terms,  it  is  true,  are,  that  it 
is  unlawful  ' '  to  enforce  the  payment  of 
duties";  but  every  custom-house  officer 
enforces  payment  while  he  detains  the 
goods  in  order  to  obtain  such  payment. 
The  ordinance,  therefore,  reaches  every 
body  concerned  in  the  collection  of  the 
duties. 

This  is  the  first  step  in  the  prosecu 
tion  of  the  peaceable  remedy.  The 
second  is  more  decisive.  By  the  act 
commonly  called  the  replevin  law,  any 
person  whose  goods  are  seized  or  de 
tained  by  the  collector  for  the  payment 
of  duties  may  sue  out  a  writ  of  replevin, 
and,  by  virtue  of  that  writ,  the  goods 
are  to  be  restored  to  him.  A  writ  of 
replevin  is  a  writ  which  the  sheriff  is 
bound  to  execute,  and  for  the  execution 
of  which  he  is  bound  to  employ  force,  if 
necessary.  He  may  call  out  the  posse, 
and  must  do  so,  if  resistance  be  made. 
This  posse  may  be  armed  or  unarmed. 
It  may  come  forth  with  military  array, 
and  under  the  lead  of  military  men. 
Whatever  number  of  troops  may  be  as 
sembled  in  Charleston,  they  may  be 
summoned,  with  the  governor,  or  com- 
mander-in-chief,  at  their  head,  to  come 
in  aid  of  the  sheriff.  It  is  evident, 
then,  Sir,  that  the  whole  military  power 
of  the  State  is  to  be  employed,  if  neces 
sary,  in  dispossessing  the  custom-house 
officers,  and  in  seizing  and  holding  the 
goods,  without  paying  the  duties.  This  is 
the  second  step  in  the  peaceable  remedy. 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


299 


Sir,  whatever  pretences  may  be  set 
up  to  the  contrary,  this  is  the  direct  ap 
plication  of  force,  and  of  military  force. 
It  is  unlawful,  in  itself,  to  replevy  goods 
in  the  custody  of  the  collectors.  But 
this  unlawful  act  is  to  be  done,  and  it  is 
to  be  done  by  power.  Here  is  a  plain 
interposition,  by  physical  force,  to  resist 
the  laws  of  the  Union.  The  legal  mode 
of  collecting  duties  is  to  detain  the 
goods  till  such  duties  are  paid  or  se 
cured.  But  force  comes,  and  overpow 
ers  the  collector  and  his  assistants,  and 
takes  away  the  goods,  leaving  the  duties 
unpaid.  There  cannot  be  a  clearer  case 
of  forcible  resistance  to  law.  And  it  is 
provided  that  the  goods  thus  seized  shall 
be  held  against  any  attempt  to  retake 
them,  by  the  same  force  which  seized 
them. 

Having  thus  dispossessed  the  officers 
of  the  government  of  the  goods,  with 
out  payment  of  duties,  and  seized  and 
secured  them  by  the  strong  arm  of  the 
State,  only  one  thing  more  remains  to 
be  done,  and  that  is,  to  cut  off  all  possi 
bility  of  legal  redress;  and  that,  too,  is 
accomplished,  or  thought  to  be  accom 
plished.  The  ordinance  declares,  that 
all  judicial  proceedings,  founded  on  the 
revenue  laws  (including,  of  course,  pro 
ceedings  in  the  courts  of  the  United 
States),  shall  be  null  and  void.  This 
nullifies  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States.  Then  comes  the  test-oath  act. 
This  requires  all  State  judges  and  jurors 
in  the  State  courts  to  swear  that  they 
will  execute  the  ordinance,  and  all  acts 
of  the  legislature  passed  in  pursuance 
thereof.  The  ordinance  declares,  that 
no  appeal  shall  be  allowed  from  the  de 
cision  of  the  State  courts  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  re 
plevin  act  makes  it  an  indictable  offence 
for  any  clerk  to  furnish  a  copy  of  the 
record,  for  the  purpose  of  such  appeal. 

The  two  principal  provisions  on  which 
South  Carolina  relies,  to  resist  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  nullify  the 
authority  of  this  government,  are,  there 
fore,  these:  — 

1.  A  forcible  seizure  of  goods,  before 
duties  are  paid  or  secured,  by  the  power 
of  the  State,  civil  and  military. 


2.  The  taking  away,  by  the  most 
effectual  means  in  her  power,  of  all  legal 
redress  in  the  courts  of  the  United 
States;  the  confining  of  judicial  pro 
ceedings  to  her  own  State  tribunals ;  and 
the  compelling  of  her  judges  and  jurors 
of  these  her  own  courts  to  take  an  oath, 
beforehand,  that  they  will  decide  all 
cases  according  to  the  ordinance,  and 
the  acts  passed  under  it;  that  is,  that 
they  will  decide  the  cause  one  way. 
They  do  not  swear  to  try  it,  on  its  own 
merits ;  they  only  swear  to  decide  it  as 
nullification  requires. 

The  character,  Sir,  of  these  provis 
ions  defies  comment.  Their  object  is  as 
plain  as  their  means  are  extraordinary. 
They  propose  direct  resistance,  by  the 
whole  power  of  the  State,  to  laws  of 
Congress,  and  cut  off,  by  methods  deemed 
adequate,  any  redress  by  legal  and  judi 
cial  authority.  They  arrest  legislation, 
defy  the  executive,  and  banish  the  judi 
cial  power  of  this  government.  They 
authorize  and  command  acts  to  be  done, 
and  done  by  force,  both  of  numbers  and 
of  arms,  which,  if  done,  and  done  by 
force,  are  clearly  acts  of  rebellion  and 
treason. 

Such,  Sir,  are  the  laws  of  South  Caro 
lina;  such,  Sir,  is  the  peaceable  remedy 
of  nullification.  Has  not  nullification 
reached,  Sir,  even  thus  early,  that  point 
of  direct  arid  forcible  resistance  to  law 
to  which  I  intimated,  three  years  ago,  it 
plainly  tended? 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  what  is  the 
reason  for  passing  laws  like  these? 
What  are  the  oppressions  experienced 
under  the  Union,  calling  for  measures 
which  thus  threaten  to  sever  and  destroy 
it?  What  invasions  of  public  liberty, 
what  ruin  to  private  happiness,  what 
long  list  of  rights  violated,  or  wrongs 
unredressed,  is  to  justify  to  the  coun 
try,  to  posterity,  and  to  the  world,  this 
assault  upon  the  free  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  this  great  and  glori 
ous  work  of  our  fathers?  At  this  very 
moment,  Sir,  the  whole  land  smiles  in 
peace,  and  rejoices  in  plenty.  A  gen 
eral  and  a  high  prosperity  pervades  the 
country;  and,  judging  by  the  common 
standard,  by  increase  of  population  and 


300 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


\vealth,  or  judging  by  the  opinions  of 
that  portion  of  her  people  not  embarked 
in  these  dangerous  and  desperate  meas 
ures,  this  prosperity  overspreads  South 
Carolina  herself. 

Thus  happy  at  home,  our  country,  at 
the  same  time,  holds  high  the  character 
of  her  institutions,  her  power,  her  rapid 
growth,  and  her  future  destiny,  in  the 
eyes  of  all  foreign  states.  One  danger 
only  creates  hesitation ;  one  doubt  only 
exists,  to  darken  the  otherwise  unclouded 
brightness  of  that  aspect  which  she  ex 
hibits  to  the  view  and  to  the  admiration 
of  the  world.  Need  I  say.  that  that 
doubt  respects  the  permanency  of  our 
Union?  and  need  I  say,  that  that  doubt 
is  now  caused,  more  than  any  thing- 
else,  by  these  very  proceedings  of  South 
Carolina?  Sir,  all  Europe  is,  at  this 
moment,  beholding  us,  and  looking  for 
the  issue  of  this  controversy ;  those  who 
hate  free  institutions,  with  malignant 
hope;  those  who  love  them,  with  deep 
anxiety  and  shivering  fear. 

The  cause,  then,  Sir,  the  cause!  Let 
the  world  know  the  cause  which  has 
thus  induced  one  State  of  the  Union  to 
bid  defiance  to  the  power  of  the  whole, 
and  openly  to  talk  of  secession.  Sir, 
the  world  will  scarcely  believe  that  this 
whole  controversy,  and  all  the  desperate 
measures  which  its  support  requires, 
have  no  other  foundation  than  a  differ 
ence  of  opinion  upon  a  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  between  a  majority  of  the 
people  of  South  Carolina,  on  one  side, 
and  a  vast  majority  of  the  whole  people 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  other.  It 
will  not  credit  the  fact,  it  will  not  admit 
the  possibility,  that,  in  an  enlightened 
age,  in  a  free,  popular  republic,  under  a 
constitution  where  the  people  govern, 
as  they  must  always  govern  under  such 
systems,  by  majorities,  at  a  time  of  un 
precedented  prosperity,  without  practi 
cal  oppression,  without  evils  such  as  may 
not  only  be  pretended,  but  felt  and  expe 
rienced,  —  evils  not  slight  or  temporary, 
but  deep,  permanent,  and  intolerable, 
—  a  single  State  should  rush  into  con 
flict  with  all  the  rest,  attempt  to  put 
down  the  power  of  the  Union  by  her 
own  laws,  and  to  support  those  laws  by 


her  military  power,  and  thus  break  up 
and  destroy  the  world's  last  hope.  And 
well  the  world  may  be  incredulous.  We, 
who  see  and  hear  it,  can  ourselves  hardly 
yet  believe  it.  Even  after  all  that  had 
preceded  it,  this  ordinance  struck  the 
country  Vith  amazement.  It  was  in 
credible  and  inconceivable  that  South 
Carolina  should  plunge  headlong  into 
resistance  to  the  laws  on  a  matter  of 
opinion,  and  on  a  question  in  which  the 
preponderance  of  opinion,  both  of  the 
present  day  and  of  all  past  time,  was  so 
overwhelmingly  against  her.  The  ordi 
nance  declares  that  Congress  has  ex 
ceeded  its  just  power  by  laying  duties 
on  imports,  intended  for  the  protection 
of  manufactures.  This  is  the  opinion 
of  South  Carolina;  and  on  the  strength 
of  that  opinion  she  nullifies  the  laws. 
Yet  has  the  rest  of  the  country  no  right 
to  its  opinion  also?  Is  one  State  to  sit 
sole  arbitress?  She  maintains  that  those 
laws  are  plain,  deliberate,  and  palpable 
violations  of  the  Constitution ;  that  she 
has  a  sovereign  right  to  decide  this  mat 
ter;  and  that,  having  so  decided,  she  is 
authorized  to  resist  their  execution  by 
her  own  sovereign  power;  and  she  de 
clares  that  she  will  resist  it,  though  such 
resistance  should  shatter  the  Union  into 
atoms. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  intend  to  dis 
cuss  the  propriety  of  these  laws  at  large; 
but  I  will  ask,  How  are  they  shown  to 
be  thus  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitu 
tional?  Have  they  no  countenance  at 
all  in  the  Constitution  itself  ?  Are  they 
quite  new  in  the  history  of  the  govern 
ment?  Are  they  a  sudden  and  violent 
usurpation  on  the  rights  of  the  States? 
Sir,  what  will  the  civilized  world  say, 
what  will  posterity  say,  when  they  learn 
that  similar  laws  have  existed  from  the 
very  foundation  of  the  government,  that 
for  thirty  years  the  power  was  never 
questioned,  and  that  no  State  in  the 
Union  has  more  freely  and  unequivocally 
admitted  it  than  South  Carolina  herself? 

To  lay  and  collect  duties  and  imposts  is 
an  express  power  granted  by  the  Constitu 
tion  to  Congress.  It  is,  also^  an  exclusive 
power;  for  the  Constitution  as  expressly 
prohibits  all  the  States  from  exercising  it 


BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


301 


themselves.  This  express  and  exclu 
sive  power  is  unlimited  in  the  terms  of 
the  grant,  but  is  attended  with  two  spe 
cific  restrictions:  first,  that  all  duties  and 
imposts  shall  be  equal  in  all  the  States; 
second,  that  no  duties  shall  be  laid  on 
exports.  The  power,  then,  being  grant 
ed,  and  being  attended  with  these  two 
restrictions,  and  no  more,  who  is  to  im 
pose  a  third  restriction  on  the  general 
words  of  the  grant?  If  the  power  to 
lay  duties,  as  known  among  all  other 
nations,  and  as  known  in  all  our  history, 
and  as  it  was  perfectly  understood  when 
the  Constitution  was  adopted,  includes 
a  right  of  discriminating  while  exer 
cising  the  power,  and  of  laying  some 
duties  heavier  and  some  lighter,  for  the 
sake  of  encouraging  our  own  domestic 
products,  what  authority  is  there  for 
giving  to  the  words  used  in  the  Consti 
tution  a  new,  narrow,  and  unusual 
meaning?  All  the  limitations  which 
the  Constitution  intended,  it  has  ex 
pressed  ;  and  what  it  has  left  unrestrict 
ed  is  as  much  a  part  of  its  will  as  the 
restraints  which  it  has  imposed. 

But  these  laws,  it  is  said,  are  uncon 
stitutional  on  account  of  the  motive. 
How,  Sir,  can  a  law  be  examined  on 
any  such  ground?  How  is  the  motive 
to  be  ascertained  ?  One  house,  or  one 
member,  may  have  one  motive;  the 
other  house,  or  another  member,  another. 
One  motive  may  operate  to-day,  and 
another  to-morrow.  Upon  any  such 
mode  of  reasoning  as  this,  one  law 
might  be  unconstitutional  now,  and 
another  law,  in  exactly  the  same  words, 
perfectly  constitutional  next  year.  Be 
sides,  articles  may  not  only  be  taxed 
for  the  purpose  of  protecting  home  prod 
ucts,  but  other  articles  may  be  left  free, 
for  the  same  purpose  and  with  the  same 
motive.  A  law,  therefore,  would  be 
come  unconstitutional  from  what  it 
omitted,  as  well  as  from  what  it  con 
tained.  Mr.  President,  it  is  a  settled 
principle,  acknowledged  in  all  legisla 
tive  halls,  recognized  before  all  tribu 
nals,  sanctioned  by  the  general  sense 
and  understanding  of  mankind,  that 
there  can  be  no  inquiry  into  the  mo 
tives  of  those  who  pass  laws,  for  the 


purpose  of  determining  on  their  validity. 
If  the  law  be  within  the  fair  meaning 
of  the  words  in  the  grant  of  the  power, 
its  authority  must  be  admitted  until  it 
is  repealed.  This  rule,  everywhere  ac 
knowledged,  everywhere  admitted,  is  so 
universal  and  so  completely  without 
exception,  that  even  an  allegation  of 
fraud,  in  the  majority  of  a  legislature, 
is  not  allowed  as  a  ground  to  set  aside 
a  law. 

But,  Sir,  is  it  true  that  the  motive  for 
these  laws  is  such  as  is  stated?  I  think 
not.  The  great  object  of  all  these  laws 
is,  unquestionably,  revenue.  If  there 
were  no  occasion  for  revenue,  the  laws 
would  not  have  been  passed;  and  it  is 
notorious  that  almost  the  entire  revenue 
of  the  country  is  derived  from  them. 
And  as  yet  we  have  collected  none  too 
much  revenue.  The  treasury  has  not 
been  more  reduced  for  many  years  than 
it  is  at  the  present  moment.  All  that 
South  Carolina  can  say  is,  that,  in  pass 
ing  the  laws  which  she  now  undertakes 
to  nullify,  particular  imported  articles 
were  taxed,  from  a  regard  to  the  protec 
tion  of  certain  articles  of  domestic  manu 
facture,  higher  than  they  would  have  been 
had  no  such  regard  been  entertained.  And 
she  insists,  that,  according  to  the  Con 
stitution,  no  such  discrimination  can  be 
allowed;  that  duties  should  be  laid  for 
revenue,  and  revenue  only;  and  that  it 
is  unlawful  to  have  reference,  in  any 
case,  to  protection.  In  other  words,  she 
denies  the  power  of  DISCRIMINATION. 
She  does  not,  and  cannot,  complain  of 
excessive  taxation ;  on  the  contrary,  she 
professes  to  be  willing  to  pay  any 
amount  for  revenue,  merely  as  revenue; 
and  up  to  the  present  moment  there  is 
no  surplus  of  revenue.  Her  grievance, 
then,  that  plain  and  palpable  violation 
of  the  Constitution  which  she  insists 
has  taken  place,  is  simply  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  DISCRIMINATION.  Now, 
Sir,  is  the  exercise  of  this  power  of  dis 
crimination  plainly  and  palpably  uncon 
stitutional? 

I  have  already  said,  the  power  to  lay 
duties  is  given  by  the  Constitution  in 
broad  and  general  terms.  There  is  also 
conferred  on  Congress  the  whole  power 


302 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 


of  regulating  commerce,  in  another  dis 
tinct  provision.  Is  it  clear  and  palpa 
ble,  Sir,  can  any  man  say  it  is  a  case 
beyond  doubt,  that,  under  these  two 
powers,  Congress  may  not  justly  discrim 
inate,  in  laying  duties,  for  the  purpose  of 
countervailing  the  policy  of  foreign  nations, 
or  of  fa  coring  our  own  home  productions  ? 
Sir,  what  ought  to  conclude  this  ques 
tion  for  ever,  as  it  would  seem  to  me,  is, 
that  the  regulation  of  commerce  and  the 
imposition  of  duties  are,  in  all  commer 
cial  nations,  powers  avowedly  and  con 
stantly  exercised  for  this  very  end. 
That  undeniable  truth  ought  to  settle 
the  question;  because  the  Constitution 
ought  to  be  considered,  when  it  uses 
well-known  language,  as  using  it  in  its 
well-known  sense.  But  it  is  equally  un 
deniable,  that  it  has  been,  from  the  very 
first,  fully  believed  that  this  power  of 
discrimination  was  conferred  on  Con 
gress;  and  the  Constitution  was  itself 
recommended,  urged  upon  the  people, 
and  enthusiastically  insisted  on  in  some 
of  the  States,  for  that  very  reason.  Not 
that,  at  that  time,  the  country  was  ex 
tensively  engaged  in  manufactures,  espe 
cially  of  the  kinds  now  existing.  But 
the  trades  and  crafts  of  the  seaport 
towns,  the  business  of  the  artisans  and 
manual  laborers,  —  those  employments, 
the  work  in  which  supplies  so  great  a 
portion  of  the  daily  wants  of  all  classes, 
—  all  these  looked  to  the  new  Constitu 
tion  as  a  source  of  relief  from  the  severe 
distress  which  followed  the  war.  It 
would,  Sir,  be  unpardonable,  at  so  late 
an  hour,  to  go  into  details  on  this  point ; 
but  the  truth  is  as  I  have  stated.  The 
papers  of  the  day,  the  resolutions  of 
public  meetings,  the  debates  in  the  con 
ventions,  all  that  we  open  our  eyes  upon 
in  the  history  of  the  times,  prove  it. 

Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  has  referred  to  two  inci 
dents  connected  with  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  at  Philadelphia,  which 
he  thinks  are  evidence  to  show  that  the 
power  of  protecting  manufactures  by 
laying  duties,  arid  by  commercial  regu 
lations,  was  not  intended  to  be  given  to 
Congress.  The  first  is,  as  he  says,  that 
a  power  to  protect  manufactures  was 


expressly  proposed,  but  not  granted.  I 
think,  Sir,  the  gentleman  is  quite  mis 
taken  in  relation  to  this  part  of  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  Convention.  The  whole 
history  of  the  occurrence  to  which  he 
alludes  ^is  simply  this.  Towards  the 
conclusion  of  the  Convention,  after  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  had  been 
mainly  agreed  upon,  after  the  power  to 
lay  duties  and  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce  had  both  been  granted,  a  long 
list  of  propositions  was  made  and  re 
ferred  to  the  committee,  containing  vari 
ous  miscellaneous  powers,  some  or  all  of 
which  it  was  thought  might  be  properly 
vested  in  Congress.  Among  these  was 
a  power  to  establish  a  university;  to 
grant  charters  of  incorporation ;  to  reg 
ulate  stage-coaches  on  the  post-roads; 
and  also  the  power  to  which  the  gentle 
man  refers,  and  which  is  expressed  in 
these  words:  "To  establish  public  in 
stitutions,  rewards,  and  immunities,  for 
the  promotion  of  agriculture,  commerce, 
trades,  and  manufactures."  The  com 
mittee  made  no  report  on  this  or  various 
other  propositions  in  the  same  list.  But 
the  only  inference  from  this  omission  is, 
that  neither  the  committee  nor  the  Con 
vention  thought  it  proper  to  authorize 
Congress  "  to  establish  public  institu 
tions,  rewards,  and  immunities,"  for  the 
promotion  of  manufactures,  and  other 
interests.  The  Convention  supposed  it 
had  done  enough,  —  at  any  rate,  it  had 
done  all  it  intended,  —  when  it  had 
given  to  Congress,  in  general  terms, 
the  power  to  lay  imposts  and  the  power 
to  regulate  trade.  It  is  not  to  be  argued, 
from  its  omission  to  give  more,  that  it 
meant  to  take  back  what  it  had  already 
given.  It  had  given  the  impost  power; 
it  had  given  the  regulation  of  trade ;  and 
it  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  give  the 
further  and  distinct  power  of  establish 
ing  public  institutions. 

The  other  fact,  Sir,  on  which  the  gen 
tleman  relies,  is  the  declaration  of  Mr. 
Martin  to  the  legislature  of  Maryland. 
The  gentleman  supposes  Mr.  Martin  to 
have  urged  against  the  Constitution, 
that  it  did  not  contain  the  power  of  pro 
tection.  But  if  the  gentleman  will  look 
again  at  what  Mr.  Martin  said,  he  will 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


303 


find,  I  think,  that  what  Mr.  Martin  com 
plained  of  was,  that  the  Constitution,  by 
its  prohibitions  on  the  States,  had  taken 
away  from  the  States  themselves  the 
power  of  protecting  their  own  manufac 
tures  by  duties  on  imports.  This  is  un 
doubtedly  true ;  but  I  find  no  expression 
of  Mr.  Martin  intimating  that  the  Con 
stitution  had  not  conferred  on  Congress 
the  same  power  which  it  had  thus  taken 
from  the  States. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  go  to  the  first  Con 
gress  ;  let  us  look  in  upon  this  and  the 
other  house,  at  the  first  session  of  their 
organization. 

We  see,  in  both  houses,  men  distin 
guished  among  the  framers,  friends,  and 
advocates  of  the  Constitution.  We  see 
in  both,  those  who  had  drawn,  discussed, 
and  matured  the  instrument  in  the  Con 
vention,  explained  and  defended  it  be 
fore  the  people,  and  were  now  elected 
members  of  Congress,  to  put  the  new 
government  into  motion,  and  to  carry 
the  powers  of  the  Constitution  into  bene 
ficial  execution.  At  the  head  of  the  gov 
ernment  was  WASHINGTON  himself,  who 
had  been  President  of  the  Convention ; 
and  in  his  cabinet  were  others  most 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  the  Constitution,  and  distinguished 
for  the  part  taken  in  its  discussion.  If 
these  persons  were  not  acquainted  with 
the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  if  they 
did  not  understand  the  work  of  their 
own  hands,  who  can  understand  it,  or 
who  shall  now  interpret  it  to  us? 

Sir,  the  volume  which  records  the  pro 
ceedings  and  debates  of  the  first  session 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  lies 
before  me.  I  open  it,  and  I  find  that, 
having  provided  for  the  administration 
of  the  necessary  oaths,  the  very  first 
measure  proposed  for  consideration  is, 
the  laying  of  imposts ;  and  in  the  very 
first  committee  of  the  whole  into  which 
the  House  of  Representatives  ever  re 
solved  itself,  on  this  its  earliest  subject, 
and  in  this  its  very  first  debate,  the  duty 
of  so  laying  the  imposts  as  to  encourage 
manufactures  was  advanced  and  en 
larged  upon  by  almost  every  speaker, 
and  doubted  or  denied  by  none.  The 
first  gentleman  who  suggests  this  as  the 


clear  duty  of  Congress,  and  as  an  object 
necessary  to  be  attended  to,  is  Mr.  Fitz- 
simons,  of  Pennsylvania;  the  second, 
Mr.  White,  of  VIRGINIA;  the  third,  Mr. 
Tucker,  of  SOUTH  CAKOLINA. 

But  the  great  leader,  Sir,  on  this  oc 
casion,  was  Mr.  Madison.  Was  he  like 
ly  to  know  the  intentions  of  the  Con 
vention  and  the  people?  Was  he  likely 
to  understand  the  Constitution?  At  the 
second  sitting  of  the  committee,  Mr. 
Madison  explained  his  own  opinions 
of  the  duty  of  Congress,  fully  and  ex 
plicitly.  I  must  not  detain  you,  Sir, 
with  more  than  a  few  short  extracts 
from  these  opinions,  but  they  are  such 
as  are  clear,  intelligible,  and  decisive. 
"  The  States,"  says  he,  "  that  are  most 
advanced  in  population,  and  ripe  for 
manufactures,  ought  to  have  their  par 
ticular  interest  attended  to,  in  some  de 
gree.  While  these  States  retained  the 
power  of  making  regulations  of  trade, 
they  had  the  power  to  cherish  such  insti 
tutions.  By  adopting  the  present  Consti 
tution,  they  have  thrown  the  exercise  of 
this  power  into  other  hands ;  they  must 
have  done  this  with  an  expectation  that 
those  interests  would  not  be  neglected 
here."  In  another  report  of  the  same 
speech,  Mr.  Madison  is  represented  as 
using  still  stronger  language ;  as  saying 
that,  the  Constitution  having  taken  this 
powrer  away  from  the  States  and  con 
ferred  it  on  Congress,  it  would  be  a 
fraud  on  the  States  and  on  the  people 
were  Congress  to  refuse  to  exercise  it. 
Mr.  Madison  argues,  Sir,  on  this  early 
and  interesting  occasion,  very  justly  and 
liberally,  in  favor  of  the  general  prin 
ciples  of  unrestricted  commerce.  But  he 
argues,  also,  with  equal  force  and  clear 
ness,  for  certain  important  exceptions  to 
these  general  principles.  The  first,  Sir, 
respects  those  manufactures  which  had 
been  brought  forward  under  encourage 
ment  by  the  State  governments.  "It 
WT>uld  be  cruel,"  says  Mr.  Madison,  "to 
neglect  them,  and  to  divert  their  indus 
try  into  other  channels ;  for  it  is  not 
possible  for  the  hand  of  man  to  shift 
!  from  one  employment  to  another  with- 
|  out  being  injured  by  the  change." 
;  Again:  "  There  may  be  some  manufac- 


304 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT   A  COMPACT 


tures  which,  being  once  formed,  can  ad 
vance  towards  perfection  without  any 
adventitious  aid ;  while  others,  for  want 
of  the  fostering  hand  of  government, 
will  be  unable  to  go  on  at  all.  Legis 
lative  provision,  therefore,  will  be  neces 
sary  to  collect  the  proper  objects  for  this 
purpose;  and  this  will  form  another  ex 
ception  to  my  general  principle."  And 
again :  ; '  The  next  exception  that  occurs 
is  one  on  which  great  stress  is  laid  by 
some  well-informed  men,  and  this  with 
great  plausibility  ;  that  each  nation 
should  have,  within  itself,  the  means 
of  defence,  independent  of  foreign  sup 
plies  ;  that,  in  whatever  relates  to  the 
operations  of  war,  no  State  ought  to  de 
pend  upon  a  precarious  supply  from  any 
part  of  the  world.  There  may  be  some 
truth  in  this  remark ;  and  therefore  it  is 
proper  for  legislative  attention." 

In  the  same  debate,  Sir,  Mr.  Burk, 
from  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  supported  a 
duty  on  hemp,  for  the  express  purpose 
of  encouraging  its  growth  on  the  strong 
lands  of  South  Carolina.  "  Cotton,"  he 
said,  "  wras  also  in  contemplation  among 
them,  and,  if  good  seed  could  be  pro 
cured,  he  hoped  might  succeed."  After 
wards,  Sir,  the  cotton  was  obtained,  its 
culture  was  protected,  and  it  did  suc 
ceed.  Mr.  Smith,  a  very  distinguished 
member  from  the  SAME  STATE,  ob 
served:  "  It  has  been  said,  and  justly, 
that  the  States  which  adopted  this  Con 
stitution  expected  its  administration 
would  be  conducted  with  a  favora 
ble  hand.  The  manufacturing  States 
wished  the  encouragement  of  manufac 
tures,  the  maritime  States  the  encour 
agement  of  ship-building,  and  the  agri 
cultural  States  the  encouragement  of 
agriculture." 

Sir,  I  will  detain  the  Senate  by  read 
ing  no  more  extracts  from  these  debates. 
I  have  already  shown  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  in  this 
very  first  session,  acknowledging  this 
power  of  protection,  voting  for  its  exer 
cise,  and  proposing  its  extension  to  their 
own  products.  Similar  propositions  came 
from  Virginia;  and,  indeed,  Sir,  in  the 
whole  debate,  at  whatever  page  you  open 
the  volume,  you  find  the  power  admitted, 


and  you  find  it  applied  to  the  protection 
of  particular  articles,  or  not  applied,  ac 
cording  to  the  discretion  of  Congress. 
No  man  denied  the  power,  no  man 
doubted  it;  the  only  questions  were,  in 
regard  to  the  several  articles  proposed 
to  be  taxed,  whether  they  were  fit  sub 
jects  for  protection,  and  what  the  amount 
of  that  protection  ought  to  be.  Will 
gentlemen,  Sir,  now  answer  the  argu 
ment  drawn  from  these  proceedings  of 
the  first  Congress  ?  Will  they  under 
take  to  deny  that  that  Congress  did  act 
on  the  avowed  principle  of  protection  V 
Or,  if  they  admit  it,  will  they  tell  us  how 
those  who  framed  the  Constitution  fell, 
thus  early,  into  this  great  mistake  about 
its  meaning  ?  Will  they  tell  us  how  it 
should  happen  that  they  had  so  soon  for 
gotten  their  own  sentiments  and  their 
own  purposes  ?  I  confess  I  have  seen 
no  answer  to  this  argument,  nor  any 
respectable  attempt  to  answer  it.  And, 
Sir,  how  did  this  debate  terminate  ? 
What  law  was  passed  ?  There  it  stands, 
Sir,  among  the  statutes,  the  second  law 
in  the  book.  It  has  a  preamble,  and  that 
preamble  expressly  recites,  that  the  du 
ties  which  it  imposes  are  laid  ' '  for  the 
support  of  government,  for  the  discharge 
of  the  debts  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  encouragement  and  protection  of  manu 
factures."  Until,  Sir,  this  early  legisla 
tion,  thus  coeval  with  the  Constitution 
itself,  thus  full  and  explicit,  can  be  ex 
plained  away,  no  man  can  doubt  of  the 
meaning  of  that  instrument  in  this  re 
spect. 

Mr.  President,  this  power  of  discrimi 
nation,  thus  admitted,  avowed,  and  prac 
tised  upon  in  the  first  revenue  act,  has 
never  been  denied  or  doubted  until  with 
in  a  few  years  past.  It  was  not  at  all 
doubted  in  1816,  when  it  became  neces 
sary  to  adjust  the  revenue  to  a  state  of 
peace.  On  the  contrary,  the  power  was 
then  exercised,  not  without  opposition 
as  to  its  expediency,  but,  as  far  as  I  re 
member  or  have  understood,  without  the 
slightest  opposition  founded  on  any  sup 
posed  want  of  constitutional  authority. 
Certainly,  SOUTH  CAROLINA  did  not 
doubt  it!  The  tariff  of  1816  was  intro 
duced,  carried  through,  and  established, 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES. 


305 


under  the  lead  of  South  Carolina.  Even 
the  minimum  policy  is  of  South  Carolina 
origin.  The  honorable  gentleman  him 
self  supported,  and  ably  supported,  the 
tariff  of  1816.  He  has  informed  us,  Sir. 
that  his  speech  on  that  occasion  was  sud 
den  and  off-hand,  he  being  called  up  by 
the  request  of  a  friend.  I  am  sure  the 
gentleman  so  remembers  it,  and  that  it 
was  so;  but  there  is,  nevertheless,  much 
method,  arrangement,  and  clear  exposi 
tion  in  that  extempore  speech.  It  is 
very  able,  very,  very  much  to  the  point, 
and  very  decisive.  And  in  another 
speech,  delivered  two  months  earlier,  on 
the  proposition  to  repeal  the  internal 
taxes,  the  honorable  gentleman  had 
touched  the  same  subject,  and  had  de 
clared  "that  a  certain  encouragement 
ought  to  be  extended  at  least  to  our  woollen 
and  cotton  manufactures. "  I  do  not  quote 
these  speeches,  Sir,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  honorable  gentleman 
has  changed  his  opinion:  my  object  is 
other  and  higher.  I  do  it  for  the  sake 
of  saying  that  that  cannot  be  so  plainly 
and  palpably  unconstitutional  as  to  war 
rant  resistance  to  law,  nullification,  and 
revolution,  which  the  honorable  gentle 
man  and  his  friends  have  heretofore 
agreed  to  and  acted  upon  without  doubt 
and  without  hesitation.  Sir,  it  is  no 
answer  to  say  that  the  tariff  of  1816  was 
a  revenue  bill.  So  are  they  all  revenue 
bills.  The  point  is,  and  the  truth  is, 
that  the  tariff  of  1816,  like  the  rest,  did 
discriminate :  it  did  distinguish  one  arti 
cle  from  another;,  it  did  lay  duties  for 
protection.  Look  to  the  case  of  coarse 
cottons  under  the  minimum  calculation : 
the  duty  on  these  was  from  sixty  to 
eighty  per  cent.  Something  beside  rev 
enue,  certainly,  was  intended  in  this; 
and,  in  fact,  the  law  cut  up  our  whole 
commerce  with  India  in  that  article. 

It  is,  Sir,  only  within  a  few  years  that 
Carolina  has  denied  the  constitutionality 
of  these  protective  laws.  The  gentleman 
himself  has  narrated  to  us  the  true  his 
tory  of  her  proceedings  on  this  point. 
He  says,  that,  after  the  passing  of  the  law 
of  1828,  despairing  then  of  being  able  to 
abolish  the  system  of  protection,  polit 
ical  men  went  forth  among  the  people, 


and  set  up  the  doctrine  that  the  system 
was  unconstitutional.  "And  the  peo 
ple,"  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  "  re 
ceived  the  doctrine."  This,  I  believe,  is 
true,  Sir.  The  people  did  then  receive 
the  doctrine ;  they  had  never  entertained 
it  before.  Down  to  that  period,  the 
constitutionality  of  these  laws  had  been 
no  more  doubted  in  South  Carolina  than 
elsewhere.  And  I  suspect  it  is  true,  Sir, 
and  I  deem  it  a  great  misfortune,  that, 
to  the  present  moment,  a  great  portion 
of  the  people  of  the  State  have  never  yet 
seen  more  than  one  side  of  the  argu 
ment.  I  believe  that  thousands  of  hon 
est  men  are  involved  in  scenes  now 
passing,  led  away  by  one-sided  views  of 
the  question,  and  following  their  leaders 
by  the  impulses  of  an  unlimited  confi 
dence.  Depend  upon  it,  Sir,  if  we  can 
avoid  the  shock  of  arms,  a  day  for  recon 
sideration  and  reflection  will  come ;  truth 
and  reason  will  act  with  their  accus 
tomed  force,  and  the  public  opinion  of 
South  Carolina  wdll  be  restored  to  its 
usual  constitutional  and  patriotic  tone. 

But,  Sir,  I  hold  South  Carolina  to  her 
ancient,  her  cool,  her  uninfluenced,  her 
deliberate  opinions.  I  hold  her  to  her 
own  admissions,  nay,  to  her  own  claims 
and  pretensions,  in  1789,  in  the  first 
Congress,  and  to  her  acknowledgments 
and  avowed  sentiments  through  a  long 
series  of  succeeding  years.  I  hold  her 
to  the  principles  on  which  she  led  Con 
gress  to  act  in  1816 ;  or,  if  she  have 
changed  her  own  opinions,  I  claim  some 
respect  for  those  who  still  retain  the 
same  opinions.  I  say  she  is  precluded 
from  asserting  that  doctrines,  which  she 
has  herself  so  long  and  so  ably  sustained, 
are  plain,  palpable,  and  dangerous  vio 
lations  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  friends  of  nulli 
fication  should  be  able  to  propagate  their 
opinions,  and  give  them  practical  effect, 
they  would,  in  my  judgment,  prove 
themselves  the  most  skilful  "architects 
of  ruin,"  the  most  effectual  extinguish 
ers  of  high-raised  expectation,  the  great 
est  blasters  of  human  hopes,  that  any  age 
has  produced.  They  would  stand  up  to 
proclaim,  in  tones  wrhich  would  pierce 
the  ears  of  half  the  human  race,  that  the 
20 


306 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT,  ETC. 


last  great  experiment  of  representative 
government  had  failed.  They  would 
send  forth  sounds,  at  the  hearing  of 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings  would  feel,  even  in  its  grave,  a 
returning  sensation  of  vitality  and  resus 
citation.  Millions  of  eyes,  of  those  who 
now  feed  their  inherent  love  of  liberty 
on  the  success  of  the  American  example, 
would  turn  away  from  beholding  our 
dismemberment,  and  find  no  place  on 
earth  whereon  to  rest  their  gratified 
sight.  Amidst  the  incantations  and  or 
gies  of  nullification,  secession,  disunion, 
and  revolution,  would  be  celebrated  the 
funeral  rites  of  constitutional  and  repub 
lican  liberty. 

But,  Sir,  if  the  government  do  its 
duty,  if  it  act  with  firmness  and  with 
moderation,  these  opinions  cannot  pre 
vail.  Be  assured,  Sir,  be  assured,  that, 
among  the  political  sentiments  of  this 
people,  the  love  of  union  is  still  upper 
most.  They  will  stand  fast  by  the  Con 
stitution,  and  by  those  who  defend  it. 
I  rely  on  no  temporary  expedients,  on  no 
political  combination:  but  I  rely  on  the 
true  American  feeling,  the  genuine  patri 
otism  of  the  people,  and  the  imperative 
decision  of  the  public  voice.  Disorder 
and  confusion,  indeed,  may  arise;  scenes 
of  commotion  and  contest  are  threat 
ened,  and  perhaps  may  come.  With  my 
whole  heart,  I  pray  for  the  continuance 
of  the  domestic  peace  and  quiet  of  the 
country.  I  desire,  most  ardently,  the 
restoration  of  affection  and  harmony  to 
all  its  parts.  I  desire  that  every  citizen 


of  the  whole  country  may  look  to  this 
government  with  no  other  sentiments 
than  those  of  grateful  respect  and  at 
tachment.  But  I  cannot  yield  even  to 
kind  feelings  the  cause  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  true  glory  of  the  country,  and 
the  grefft  trust  which  we  hold  in  our 
hands  for  succeeding  ages.  If  the  Con 
stitution  cannot  be  maintained  without 
meeting  these  scenes  of  commotion  and 
contest,  however  unwelcome,  they  must 
come.  We  cannot,  we  must  not,  we  dare 
not,  omit  to  do  that  which,  in  our  judg 
ment,  the  safety  of  the  Union  requires. 
Not  regardless  of  consequences,  we  must 
yet  meet  consequences;  seeing  the  haz 
ards  which  surround  the  discharge  of 
public  duty,  it  must  yet  be  discharged. 
For  myself,  Sir,  I  shun  no  responsibility 
justly  devolving  on  me,  here  or  else 
where,  in  attempting  to  maintain  the 
cause.  I  am  bound  to  it  by  indissoluble 
ties  of  affection  and  duty,  and  I  shall 
cheerfully  partake  in  its  fortunes  and  its 
fate.  I  am  ready  to  perform  my  own 
appropriate  part,  whenever  and  wherever 
the  occasion  may  call  on  me,  and  to  take 
my  chance  among  those  upon  whom 
blows  may  fall  first  and  fall  thickest. 
I  shall  exert  every  faculty  I  possess  in 
aiding  to  prevent  the  Constitution  from 
being  nullified,  destroyed,  or  impaired; 
and  even  should  I  see  it  fall,  I  will  still, 
with  a  voice  feeble,  perhaps,  but  earnest 
as  ever  issued  from  human  lips,  and 
with  fidelity  and  zeal  which  nothing 
shall  extinguish,  call  on  the  PEOPLE 
to  come  to  its  rescue. 


PUBLIC    DINNER  AT   NEW  YORK. 


A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  A  PUBLIC  DINNER  GIVEN  BY  A  LARGE  NUMBER 
OF  CITIZENS  OF  NEW  YORK,  IN  HONOR  OF  MR.  WEBSTER,  ON  MARCH 
lOxn,  1831. 


[!N  February,  1831,  several  distinguished 
gentlemen  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  be 
half  of  themselves  and  a  large  number  of 
other  citizens,  invited  Mr.  Webster  to  a  pub 
lic  dinner,  as  a  mark  of  their  respect  for 
the  value  and  success  of  his  efforts,  in  the 
preceding  session  of  Congress,  in  defence 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
His  speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne  (con 
tained  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  volume), 
which,  by  that  time,  had  been  circulated 
and  read  through  the  country  to  a  greater 
extent  than  any  speech  ever  before  delivered 
in  Congress,  was  the  particular  effort  which 
led  to  this  invitation. 

The  dinner  took  place  at  the  City  Hotel, 
on  the  10th  of  March,  and  was  attended  by 
a  very  large  assembly. 

Chancellor  Kent  presided,  and,  in  propos 
ing  to  the  company  the  health  of  their  guest, 
made  the  following  remarks  :  — 

"  New  England  has  been  long  fruitful  in 
great  men,  the  necessary  consequence  of  the 
admirable  discipline  of  her  institutions;  and  we 
are  this  day  honored  with  the  presence  of  one 
of  those  cherished  objects  of  her  attachment 
and  pride,  who  has  an  undoubted  and  peculiar 
title  to  our  regard.  It  is  a  plain  truth,  that  he 
who  defends  the  constitution  of  his  country  by 
his  wisdom  in  council  is  entitled  to  share  her 
gratitude  with  those  who  protect  it  by  valor  in 
the  field.  Peace  has  its  victories  as  well  as  war. 
We  all  recollect  a  late  memorable  occasion,  when 
the  exalted  talents  and  enlightened  patriotism 
of  the  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  alluded  were 
exerted  in  the  support  of  our  national  Union 
and  the  sound  interpretation  of  its  charter. 

"  If  there  be  any  one  political  precept  pre 
eminent  above  all  others  and  acknowledged  by 
all,  it  is  that  which  dictates  the  absolute  neces 
sity  of  a  union  of  the  States  under  one  govern 
ment,  and  that  government  clothed  with  those 
attributes  and  powers  with  which  the  existing 
Constitution  has  invested  it.  We  are  indebted, 
under  Providence,  to  the  operation  and  influence 
of  the  powers  of  that  Constitution  for  our  na 
tional  honor  abroad  and  for  unexampled  pros 
perity  at  home.  Its  future  stability  depends 
upon  the  tirni  support  and  due  exercise  of  its 


legitimate  powers  in  all  their  branches.  A 
tendency  to  disunion,  to  anarchy  among  the 
members  rather  than  to  tyranny  in  the  head, 
has  been  heretofore  the  melancholy  fate  of  all 
the  federal  governments  of  ancient  and  modern 
Europe.  Our  Union  and  national  Constitution 
were  formed,  as  we  have  hitherto  been  led  to 
believe,  under  better  auspices  and  with  improved 
wisdom.  But  there  was  a  deadly  principle  of 
disease  inherent  in  the  system.  The  assump 
tion  by  any  member  of  the  Union  of  the  right 
to  question  and  resist,  or  annul,  as  its  own  judg 
ment  should  dictate,  either  the  laws  of  Congress, 
or  the  treaties,  or  the  decisions  of  the  federal 
courts,  or  the  mandates  of  the  executive  power, 
duly  made  and  promulgated  as  the  Constitution 
prescribes,  was  a  most  dangerous  assumption 
of  power,  leading  to  collision  and  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  system.  And  if,  contrary  to  all  our 
expectations",  we  should  hereafter  fail  in  the 
grand  experiment  of  a  confederate  government 
extending  over  some  of  the  fairest  portions  of 
this  continent,  and  destined  to  act,  at  the  same 
time,  with  efficiency  and  harmony,  we  should 
most  grievously  disappoint  the  hopes  of  man 
kind,  and  blast  for  ever  the  fruits  of  the  Revo 
lution. 

"  But,  happily  for  us,  the  refutation  of  such 
dangerous  pretensions,  on  the  occasion  referred 
to,  was  signal  and  complete.  The  false  images 
and  delusive  theories  which  had  perplexed  the 
thoughts  and  disturbed  the  judgments  of  men, 
were  then  dissipated  in  like  manner  as  spectres 
disappear  at  the  rising  of  the  sun.  The  ines 
timable  value  of  the  Union,  and  the  true  princi 
ples  of  the  Constitution,  were  explained  by  clear 
and  accurate  reasonings,  and  enforced  by  pa 
thetic  and  eloquent  illustrations.  The  result 
was  the  more  auspicious,  as  the  heretical  doc 
trines  which  were  then  fairly  reasoned  down 
had  been  advanced  by  a  very  respectable  por 
tion  of  the  Union,  and  urged  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  bv  the  polished  mind,  manly  zeal,  and 
honored  name  of  a  distinguished  member  from 
the  South 

44  The  consequences  of  that  discussion  have 
been  extremely  beneficial.  It  turned  the  atten 
tion  of  the  public  to  the  great  doctrines  of  na 
tional  rights  and  national  union.  Constitutional 
law  ceased  to  remain  wrapped  up  in  the  breasts, 
and  taught  only  by  the  responses,  of  the  living 
oracles  of  the  law".  Socrates  was  said  to  have 


308 


PUBLIC   DINNER  AT  NEW   YORK. 


drawn  down  philosophy  from  the  skies,  and 
scattered  it  among  the  schools.  It  may  with 
equal  truth  be  said,  that  constitutional  law,  by 
means  of  those  senatorial  discussions  and  the 
master  genius  that  guided  them,  was  rescued 
from  the  archives  of  our  tribunals  and  the 
libraries  of  lawyers,  and  placed  under  the  eye, 
and  submitted  to  the  judgment,  of  the  Ameri 
can  people.  Their  verdict  is  with  us,  and  from 
it  thtre  lies  no  appeal." 

As  soon  as  the  immense  cheering  and 
acclamations  with  which  this  address  and 
toast  were  received  had  subsided,  Mr.  Web 
ster  rose  and  addressed  the  company  as 
follows.] 

I  OWE  the  honor  of  this  occasion, 
Gentlemen,  to  your  patriotic  and  affec 
tionate  attachment  to  the  Constitution 
of  our  country.  For  an  effort,  well  in 
tended,  however  otherwise  of  unpretend 
ing  character,  made  in  the  discharge  of 
public  duty,  and  designed  to  maintain 
the  Constitution  and  vindicate  its  just 
powers,  you  have  been  pleased  to  tender 
me  this  token  of  your  respect.  It  would 
be  idle  affectation  to  deny  that  it  gives 
me  singular  gratification.  Every  public 
man  must  naturally  desire  the  approba 
tion  of  his  fellow-citizens;  and  though 
it  may  be  supposed  that  I  should  be 
anxious,  in  the  first  place,  not  to  disap 
point  the  expectations  of  those  whose 
immediate  representative  I  am,  it  is  not 
possible  but  that  I  should  feel,  neverthe 
less,  the  high  value  of  such  a  mark  of 
esteem  as  is  here  offered.  But,  Gentle 
men,  I  am  conscious  that  the  main  pur 
pose  of  this  occasion  is  higher  than  mere 
manifestation  of  personal  regard.  It  is 
to  evince  your  devotion  to  the  Constitu 
tion,  your  sense  of  its  transcendent  value, 
and  your  just  alarm  at  whatever  threat 
ens  to  weaken  its  proper  authority,  or 
endanger  its  existence. 

Gentlemen,  this  could  hardly  be  other 
wise.  It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if 
the  members  of  this  vast  commercial 
community  should  not  be  first  and  fore 
most  to  rally  for  the  Constitution,  when 
ever  opinions  and  doctrines  are  advanced 
hostile  to  its  principles.  Where  sooner 
than  here,  where  louder  than  here,  may 
we  expect  a  patriotic  voice  to  be  raised, 
when  the  union  of  the  States  is  threat 
ened?  In  this  great  emporium,  at  this 
central  point  of  the  united  commerce  of 


the  United  States,  of  all  places,  we  may 
expect  the  warmest,  the  most  determined 
and  universal  feeling  of  attachment  to 
the  national  government.  Gentlemen, 
no  one  can  estimate  more  highly  than  I 
do  the  natural  advantages  of  your  city. 
No  one  efltertains  a  higher  opinion  than 
myself,  also,  of  that  spirit  of  wise  and 
liberal  policy,  which  has  actuated  the 
government  of  your  own  great  State  in 
the  accomplishment  of  high  objects,  im 
portant  to  the  growth  and  prosperity 
both  of  the  State  and  the  city.  But  all 
these  local  advantages,  and  all  this  en 
lightened  state  policy,  could  never  have 
made  your  city  what  it  now  is,  without 
the  aid  and  protection  of  a  general  gov 
ernment,  extending  over  all  the  States, 
and  establishing  for  all  a  common  and 
uniform  system  of  commercial  regula 
tion.  Without  national  character,  with 
out  public  credit,  without  systematic 
finance,  without  uniformity  of  commer 
cial  laws,  all  other  advantages  possessed 
by  this  city  would  have  decayed  and 
perished,  like  unripe  fruit.  A  general 
government  was,  for  years  before  it  was 
instituted,  the  great  object  of  desire  to 
the  inhabitants  of  this  city.  New  York, 
at  a  very  early  day,  was  conscious  of  her 
local  advantages  for  commerce ;  she  saw 
her  destiny,  and  was  eager  to  embrace 
it;  but  nothing  else  than  a  general  gov 
ernment  could  make  free  her  path  before 
her,  and  set  her  forward  on  her  brilliant 
career.  She  early  saw  all  this,  and  to 
the  accomplishment  of  this  great  and  in 
dispensable  object  she  bent  every  faculty, 
and  exerted  every  effort.  She  was  not 
mistaken.  She  formed  no  false  judg 
ment.  At  the  moment  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  New  York  was  the 
capital  of  one  State,  and  contained  thirty- 
two  or  three  thousand  people.  It  now 
contains  more  than  two  hundred  thou 
sand  people,  and  is  justly  regarded  as 
the  commercial  capital,  not  only  of  all 
the  United  States,  but  of  the  whole  con 
tinent  also,  from  the  pole  to  the  South 
Sea.  Every  page  of  her  history,  for  the 
last  forty  years,  bears  high  and  irresisti 
ble  testimony  to  the  benefits  and  bless 
ings  of  the  general  government.  Her 
astonishing  growth  is  referred  to,  and 


PUBLIC   DINNER   AT   NEW  YORK. 


309 


quoted,  all  the  world  over,  as  one  of  the 
most  striking  proofs  of  the  effects  of  our 
Federal  Union.  To  suppose  her  now  to 
be  easy  and  indifferent,  when  notions 
are  advanced  tending  to  its  dissolution, 
would  be  to  suppose  her  equally  forget 
ful  of  the  past  and  blind  to  the  present, 
alike  ignorant  of  her  own  history  and 
her  own  interest,  metamorphosed,  from 
all  that  she  has  been,  into  a  being  tired 
of  its  prosperity,  sick  of  its  own  growth 
and  greatness,  and  infatuated  for  its  own 
destruction.  Every  blow  aimed  at  the 
union  of  the  States  strikes  on  the  tender- 
est  nerve  of  her  interest  and  her  happi 
ness.  To  bring  the  Union  into  debate 
is  to  bring  her  own  future  prosperity 
into  debate  also.  To  speak  of  arresting 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  of  interposing 
State  power  in  matters  of  commerce  and 
revenue,  of  weakening  the  full  and  just 
authority  of  the  general  government, 
would  be,  in  regard  to  this  city,  but 
another  mode  of  speaking  of  commer 
cial  ruin,  of  abandoned  wharfs,  of  va 
cated  houses,  of  diminished  and  dispers 
ing  population,  of  bankrupt  merchants, 
of  mechanics  without  employment,  and 
laborers  without  bread.  The  growth  of 
this  city  and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  are  coevals  and  contem 
poraries.  They  began  together,  they 
have  flourished  together,  and  if  rash 
ness  and  folly  destroy  one,  the  other 
will  follow  it  to  the  tomb. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
growth  of  this  city  is  extraordinary,  and 
almost  unexampled.  It  is  now,  I  be 
lieve,  sixteen  or  seventeen  years  since  I 
first  saw  it.  Within  that  comparatively 
short  period,  it  has  added  to  its  number 
three  times  the  whole  amount  of  its 
population  when  the  Constitution  was 
adopted.  Of  all  things  having  power 
to  check  this  prosperity,  of  all  things 
potent  to  blight  and  blast  it,  of  all 
things  capable  of  compelling  this  city 
to  recede  as  fast  as  she  has  advanced, 
a  disturbed  government,  an  enfeebled 
public  authority,  a  broken  or  a  weak 
ened  union  of  the  States,  would  be  most 
efficacious.  This  would  be  cause  effi 
cient  enough.  Every  thing  else,  in  the 
common  fortune  of  communities,  she 


may  hope  to  resist  or  to  prevent;  but 
this  would  be  fatal  as  the  arrow  of 
death. 

Gentlemen,  you  have  personal  recol 
lections  and  associations,  connected  with 
the  establishment  and  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  which  are  necessarily  called 
up  on  an  occasion  like  this.  It  is  im 
possible  to  forget  the  prominent  agency 
exercised  by  eminent  citizens  of  your 
own,  in  regard  to  that  great  measure. 
Those  great  men  are  now  recorded 
among  the  illustrious  dead;  but  they 
have  left  names  never  to  be  forgotten, 
and  never  to  be  remembered  without 
respect  and  veneration.  Least  of  all 
can  they  be  forgotten  by  you,  when  as 
sembled  here  for  the  purpose  of  signify 
ing  your  attachment  to  the  Constitution, 
and  your  sense  of  its  inestimable  impor 
tance  to  the  happiness  of  the  people. 

I  should  do  violence  to  my  own  feel 
ings,  Gentlemen,  I  think  I  should  offend 
yours,  if  I  omitted  respectful  mention 
of  distinguished  names  yet  fresh  in  your 
recollections.  How  can  I  stand  here,  to 
speak  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  wisdom  of  its  provisions, 
of  the  difficulties  attending  its  adoption, 
of  the  evils  from  which  it  rescued  the 
country,  and  of  the  prosperity  and  power 
to  which  it  has  raised  it,  and  yet  pay  no 
tribute  to  those  who  were  highly  in 
strumental  in  accomplishing  the  work? 
While  we  are  here  to  rejoice  that  it  yet 
stands  firm  and  strong,  while  we  con 
gratulate  one  another  that  we  live  under 
its  benign  influence,  and  cherish  hopes 
of  its  long  duration,  we  cannot  forget 
who  they  were  that,  in  the  day  of  our 
national  infancy,  in  the  times  of  de 
spondency  and  despair,  mainly  assisted 
to  work  out  our  deliverance.  I  should 
feel  that  I  was  unfaithful  to  the  strong 
recollections  which  the  occasion  presses 
upon  us,  that  I  was  not  true  to  grati 
tude,  not  true  to  patriotism,  not  true  to 
the  living  or  the  dead,  not  true  to  your 
feelings  or  my  own,  if  I  should  forbear 
to  make  mention  of  ALEXANDER  HAM 
ILTON. 

Coming  from  the  military  service  of 
the  country  yet  a  youth,  but  with  knowl 
edge  and  maturity,  even  in  civil  affairs, 


310 


PUBLIC   DINNER  AT  NEW  YORK. 


far  beyond  his  years,  he  made  this  city 
the  place  of  his  adoption;  and  he  gave 
the  whole  powers  of  his  mind  to  the 
contemplation  of  the  weak  and  distracted 
condition  of  the  country.  Daily  increas 
ing  in  acquaintance  and  confidence  with 
the  people  of  Xew  York,  he  saw,  what 
they  also  saw,  the  absolute  necessity  of 
some  closer  bond  of  union  for  the  States. 
This  was  the  great  object  of  desire. 
He  never  appears  to  have  lost  sight  of 
it,  but  was  found  in  the  lead  whenever 
any  thing  was  to  be  attempted  for  its 
accomplishment.  One  experiment  after 
another,  as  is  well  known,  was  tried, 
and  all  failed.  The  States  were  ur 
gently  called  on  to  confer  such  further 
powers  on  the  old  Congress  as  would 
enable  it  to  redeem  the  public  faith,  or 
to  adopt,  themselves,  some  general  and 
common  principle  of  commercial  regula 
tion.  But  the  States  had  not  agreed, 
and  were  not  likely  to  agree.  In  this 
posture  of  affairs,  so  full  of  public  diffi 
culty  and  public  distress,  commissioners 
from  five  or  six  of  the  States  met,  on 
the  request  of  Virginia,  at  Annapolis, 
in  September,  1786.  The  precise  ob 
ject  of  their  appointment  was  to  take 
into  consideration  the  trade  of  the  Unit 
ed  States;  to  examine  the  relative  situ 
ations  and  trade  of  the  several  States; 
and  to  consider  how  far  a  uniform  sys 
tem  of  commercial  regulations  was  ne 
cessary  to  their  common  interest  and 
permanent  harmony.  Mr.  Hamilton 
was  one  of  these  commissioners;  and  I 
have  understood,  though  I  cannot  assert 
the  fact,  that  their  report  was  drawn  by 
him.  His  associate  from  this  State 
was  the  venerable  Judge  Benson,  W7ho 
has  lived  long,  and  still  lives,  to  see  the 
happy  results  of  the  counsels  which  origi 
nated  in  this  meeting.  Of  its  mem 
bers,  he  and  Mr.  Madison  are,  I  believe, 
now  the  only  survivors.  These  commis 
sioners  recommended,  what  took  place 
the  next  year,  a  general  Convention  of 
all  the  States,  to  take  into  serious  de 
liberation  the  condition  of  the  country, 
and  devise  such  provisions  as  should 
render  the  constitution  of  the  federal 
government  adequate  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  Union.  I  need  not  remind  you, 


that  of  this  Convention  Mr.  Hamilton 
was  an  active  and  efficient  member. 
The  Constitution  was  framed,  and  sub 
mitted  to  the  country.  And  then  an 
other  great  work  was  to  be  undertaken. 
The  Constitution  would  naturally  find, 
and  did  find,  enemies  and  opposers. 
Objections  to  it  were  numerous,  and 
powerful,  and  spirited.  They  were  to 
be  answered;  and  they  were  effectually 
answered.  The  writers  of  the  numbers 
of  the  Federalist,  Mr.  Hamilton,  Mr. 
Madison,  and  Mr.  Jay,  so  greatly  dis 
tinguished  themselves  in  their  discus 
sions  of  the  Constitution,  that  those 
numbers  are  generally  received  as  im 
portant  commentaries  on  the  text,  and 
accurate  expositions,  in  general,  of  its 
objects  and  purposes.  Those  papers 
were  all  written  and  published  in  this 
city.  Mr.  Hamilton  was  elected  one  of 
the  distinguished  delegation  from  the 
city  to  the  State  Convention  at  Pough- 
keepsie,  called  to  ratify  the  new  Consti 
tution.  Its  debates  are  published.  Mr. 
Hamilton  appears  to  have  exerted,  on 
this  occasion,  to  the  utmost,  every  power 
and  faculty  of  his  mind. 

The  whole  question  was  likely  to  de 
pend  on  the  decision  of  New  York.  He 
felt  the  full  importance  of  the  crisis; 
and  the  reports  of  his  speeches,  imper 
fect  as  they  probably  are,  are  yet  lasting 
monuments  to  his  genius  and  patriotism. 
He  saw  at  last  his  hopes  fulfilled;  he 
saw  the  Constitution  adopted,  and  the 
government  under  it  established  and  or 
ganized.  The  discerning  eye  of  Wash 
ington  immediately  called  him  to  that 
post,  which  was  far  the  most  important 
in  the  administration  of  the  new  system. 
He  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ; 
and  how  he  fulfilled  the  duties  of  such  a 
place,  at  such  a  time,  the  whole  country 
perceived  with  delight  and  the  whole 
world  saw  with  admiration.  He  smote 
the  rock  of  the  national  resources,  and 
abundant  streams  of  revenue  gushed 
forth.  He  touched  the  dead  corpse  of 
the  Public  Credit,  and  it  sprung  upon 
its  feet.  The  fabled  birth  of  Minerva, 
from  the  brain  of  Jove,  was  hardly  more 
sudden  or  more  perfect  than  the  finan 
cial  system  of  the  United  States,  as  it 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW   YORK. 


311 


burst    forth    from    the    conceptions    of 
ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 

Your  recollections,  Gentlemen,  your 
respect,  and  your  affections,  all  conspire 
to  bring  before  you,  at  such  a  time  as 
this,  another  great  man,  now  too  num 
bered  with  the  dead.  I  mean  the  pure, 
the  disinterested,  the  patriotic  JOHN 
JAY.  His  character  is  a  brilliant  jewel 
in  the  sacred  treasures  of  national  repu 
tation.  Leaving  his  profession  at  an 
early  period,  yet  not  before  he  had  sin 
gularly  distinguished  himself  in  it,  his 
whole  life,  from  the  commencement  of 
the  Revolution  until  his  final  retirement, 
was  a  life  of  public  service.  A  mem 
ber  of  the  first  Congress,  he  was  the 
author  of  that  political  paper  which  is 
generally  acknowledged  to  stand  first 
among  the  incomparable  productions  of 
that  body  ; '  productions  which  called 
forth  that  decisive  strain  of  commenda 
tion  from  the  great  Lord  Chatham,  in 
which  he  pronounced  them  not  inferior 
to  the  finest  productions  of  the  master 
states  of  the  world.  Mr.  Jay  had  been 
abroad,  and  he  had  also  been  long  in 
trusted  with  the  difficult  duties  of  our 
foreign  correspondence  at  home.  He 
had  seen  and  felt,  in  the  fullest  measure 
and  to  the  greatest  possible  extent,  the 
difficulty  of  conducting  our  foreign  af 
fairs  honorably  and  usefully,  without 
a  stronger  and  more  perfect  domestic 
union.  Though  not  a  member  of  the 
Convention  which  framed  the  Constitu 
tion,  he  was  yet  present  while  it  was  in 
session,  and  looked  anxiously  for  its  re 
sult.  By  the  choice  of  this  city,  he  had 
a  seat  in  the  State  Convention,  and  took 
an  active  and  zealous  part  for  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution.  On  the  organ 
ization  of  the  new  government,  he  was 
selected  by  Washington  to  be  the  first 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States;  and  surely  the  high 
and  most  responsible  duties  of  that  sta 
tion  could  not  have  been  trusted  to  abler 
or  safer  hands.  It  is  the  duty  of  that 
tribunal,  one  of  equal  importance  and 
delicacy,  to  decide  constitutional  ques 
tions,  occasionally  arising  on  State  laws. 
The  general  learning  and  ability,  and 
1  Address  to  the  People  of  Great  Britain. 


especially  the  prudence,  the  mildness, 
and  the  firmness  of  his  character,  emi 
nently  fitted  Mr.  Jay  to  be  the  head  of 
such  a  court.  When  the  spotless  ermine 
of  the  judicial  robe  fell  on  John  Jay,  it 
touched  nothing  less  spotless  than  itself. 

These  eminent  men,  Gentlemen,  the 
contemporaries  of  some  of  you,  known 
to  most,  and  revered  by  all,  were  so  con 
spicuous  in  the  framing  and  adopting  of 
the  Constitution,  and  called  so  early  to 
important  stations  under  it,  that  a  trib 
ute,  better,  indeed,  than  I  have  given, 
or  am  able  to  give,  seemed  due  to  them 
from  us,  on  this  occasion. 

There  was  yet  another,  of  whom  men 
tion  is  to  be  made.  In  the  Revolution 
ary  history  of  the  country,  the  name  of 
CHANCELLOR  LIVINGSTON  became  early 
prominent.  He  was  a  member  of  that 
Congress  which  declared  Independence ; 
and  a  member,  too,  of  the  committee 
which  drew  and  reported  the  immortal 
Declaration.  At  the  period  of  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  he  was  its  firm 
friend  and  able  advocate.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  State  Convention,  being 
one  of  that  list  of  distinguished  and 
gifted  men  who  represented  this  city 
in  that  body;  and  he  threw  the  whole 
weight  of  his  talents  and  influence  into 
the  doubtful  scale  of  the  Constitution. 

Gentlemen,  as  connected  with  the 
Constitution,  you  have  also  local  recol 
lections  which  must  bind  it  still  closer 
to  your  attachment  and  affection.  It 
commenced  its  being  and  its  blessings 
here.  It  was  in  this  city,  in  the  midst 
of  friends,  anxious,  hopeful,  and  de 
voted,  that  the  new  government  started 
in  its  course.  To  us,  Gentlemen,  who 
are  younger,  it  has  come  down  by  tradi 
tion  ;  but  some  around  me  are  old  enough 
to  have  witnessed,  and  did  witness,  the 
interesting  scene  of  the  first  inaugura 
tion.  They  remember  what  voices  of 
gratified  patriotism,  what  shouts  of  en 
thusiastic  hope,  what  acclamations  rent 
the  air,  how  many  eyes  were  suffused 
with  tears  of  joy,  how  cordially  each 
man  pressed  the  hand  of  him  who  was 
next  to  him,  when,  standing  in  the  open 
air,  in  the  centre  of  the  city,  in  the  view 
of  assembled  thousands,  the  first  Presi- 


312 


TUB LIC  DINNER   AT  NEW   YORK. 


dent  of  the  United  States  was  heard 
solemnly  to  pronounce  the  words  of  his 
official  oath,  repeating  them  from  the 
lips  of  Chancellor  Livingston.  You 
then  thought,  Gentlemen,  that  the 
great  work  of  the  Revolution  was  ac 
complished.  You  then  felt  that  you  had 
a  government;  that  the  United  States 
were  then,  indeed,  united.  Every  be 
nignant  star  seemed  to  shed  its  selectest 
influence  on  that  auspicious  hour.  Here 
were  heroes  of  the  Revolution ;  here  were 
sages  of  the  Convention  ;  here  were 
minds,  disciplined  and  schooled  in  all 
the  various  fortunes  of  the  country,  act 
ing  now  in  several  relations,  but  all  co 
operating  to  the  same  great  end,  the 
successful  administration  of  the  new 
and  untried  Constitution.  And  he,  — 
how  shall  I  speak  of  him?  —  he  was  at 
the  head,  who  was  already  first  in  war, 
who  was  already  first  in  the  hearts  of 
his  countrymen,  and  who  was  now  shown 
also,  by  the  unanimous  suffrage  of  the 
country,  to  be  first  in  peace. 

Gentlemen,  how  gloriously  have  the 
hopes  then  indulged  been  fulfilled! 
Whose  expectation  was  then  so  san 
guine,  I  may  almost  ask,  whose  imagi 
nation  then  so  extravagant,  as  to  run 
forward,  and  contemplate  as  probable, 
the  one  half  of  what  has  been  accom 
plished  in  forty  years?  Who  among 
you  can  go  back  to  1789,  and  see  what 
this  city,  and  this  country,  too,  then 
were;  and,  beholding  what  they  now 
are,  can  be  ready  to  consent  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  weakened,  —  dishonored,  —  nullified  ? 

Gentlemen,  before  I  leave  these  pleas 
ant  recollections,  I  feel  it  an  irresistible 
impulse  of  duty  to  pay  a  tribute  of  re 
spect  to  another  distinguished  person, 
not,  indeed,  a  fellow-citizen  of  your 
own,  but  associated  with  those  I  have 
already  mentioned  in  important  labors, 
and  an  early  and  indefatigable  friend 
and  advocate  in  the  great  cause  of  the 
Constitution.  I  refer  to  MR.  MADISON. 
I  am  aware,  Gentlemen,  that  a  tribute 
of  regard  from  me  to  him  is  of  little 
importance ;  but  if  it  shall  receive  your 
approbation  and  sanction,  it  will  be 
come  of  value.  Mr.  Madison,  thanks 


to  a  kind  Providence,  is  yet  among  the 
living,  and  there  is  certainly  no  other 
individual  living,  to  whom  the  country 
is  so  much  indebted  for  the  blessings  of 
the  Constitution.  He  was  one  of  the 
commissioners  who  met  at  Annapolis, 
in  1786,  to  which  meeting  I  have  al 
ready  referred,  and  which,  to  the  great 
credit  of  Virginia,  had  its  origin  in  a 
proceeding  of  that  State.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  Convention  of  1787,  and 
of  that  of  Virginia  in  the  following 
year.  He  was  thus  intimately  acquaint 
ed  with  the  whole  progress  of  the  for 
mation  of  the  Constitution,  from  its 
very  first  step  to  its  final  adoption.  If 
ever  man  had  the  means  of  understand 
ing  a  written  instrument,  Mr.  Madison 
has  the  means  of  understanding  the  Con 
stitution.  If  it  be  possible  to  know  what 
was  designed  by  it,  he  can  tell  us.  It 
was  in  this  city,  that,  in  conjunction 
with  Mr.  Hamilton  and  Mr.  Jay,  he 
wrote  the  numbers  of  the  Federalist; 
and  it  was  in  this  city  that  he  com 
menced  his  brilliant  career  under  the 
new  Constitution,  having  been  elected 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  first  Congress.  The  recorded  votes 
and  debates  of  those  times  show  his  ac 
tive  and  efficient  agency  in  every  im 
portant  measure  of  that  Congress.  The 
necessary  organization  of  the  govern 
ment,  the  arrangement  of  the  depart 
ments,  and  especially  the  paramount 
subject  of  revenue,  engaged  his  atten 
tion,  and  divided  his  labors. 

The  legislative  history  of  the  first  two 
or  three  years  of  the  government  is  full 
of  instruction.  It  presents,  in  striking 
light,  the  evils  intended  to  be  remedied 
by  the  Constitution,  and  the  provisions 
which  were  deemed  essential  to  the 
remedy  of  those  evils.  It  exhibits  the 
country,  in  the  moment  of  its  change 
from  a  weak  and  ill-defined  confederacy 
of  States,  into  a  general,  efficient,  but 
still  restrained  and  limited  government. 
It  shows  the  first  working  of  our  pe 
culiar  system,  moved,  as  it  then  was, 
by  master  hands. 

Gentlemen,  for  one,  I  confess  I  like 
to  dwell  on  this  part  of  our  history.  It 
is  good  for  us  to  be  here.  It  is  good  for 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW   YORK. 


313 


us  to  study  the  situation  of  the  country 
at  this  period,  to  survey  its  difficulties, 
to  look  at  the  conduct  of  its  public  men, 
to  see  how  they  struggled  with  obstacles, 
real  and  formidable,  and  how  gloriously 
they  brought  the  Union  out  of  its  state 
of  depression  and  distress.  Truly,  Gen 
tlemen,  these  founders  and  fathers  of 
the  Constitution  were  great  men,  and 
thoroughly  furnished  for  every  good 
work.  All  that  reading  and  learning 
could  do  ;  all  that  talent  and  intelli 
gence  could  do;  and,  what  perhaps  is 
still  more,  all  that  long  experience  in 
difficult  and  troubled  times  and  a  deep 
and  intimate  practical  knowledge  of  the 
condition  of  the  country  could  do,  — 
conspired  to  fit  them  for  the  great  busi 
ness  of  forming  a  general,  but  limited 
government,  embracing  common  objects, 
extending  over  all  the  States,  and  yet 
touching  the  power  of  the  States  no  fur 
ther  than  those  common  objects  require. 
I  confess  1  love  to  linger  around  these 
original  fountains,  and  to  drink  deep  of 
their  waters.  I  love  to  imbibe,  in  as 
full  measure  as  I  may,  the  spirit  of  those 
who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  so  wisely  and  skilfully  bal 
anced  and  adjusted  its  bearings  and  pro 
portions. 

Having  been  afterwards,  for  eight 
years,  Secretary  of  State,  and  as  long 
President,  Mr.  Madison  has  had  an  ex 
perience  in  the  affairs  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  certainly  second  to  no  man.  More 
than  any  other  man  living,  and  perhaps 
more  than  any  other  who  has  lived,  his 
whole  public  life  has  been  incorporated, 
as  it  were,  into  the  Constitution;  in  the 
original  conception  and  project  of  at 
tempting  to  form  it,  in  its  actual  fram 
ing,  in  explaining  and  recommending  it, 
by  speaking  and  writing,  in  assisting  at 
the  first  organization  of  the  government 
under  it,  and  in  a  long  administration 
of  its  executive  powers,  —  in  these  vari 
ous  ways  he  has  lived  near  the  Consti 
tution,  and  with  the  power  of  imbibing 
its  true  spirit,  and  inhaling  its  very 
breath,  from  its  first  pulsation  of  life. 
Again,  therefore,  I  ask,  If  he  cannot 
tell  us  what  the  Constitution  is,  and 
what  it  means,  who  can?  He  had  re 


tired  with  the  respect  and  regard  of  the 
community,  and  might  naturally  be  sup 
posed  not  willing  to  interfere  again  in 
matters  of  political  concern.  He  has, 
nevertheless,  not  withholden  his  opin 
ions  on  the  vital  question  discussed  on 
that  occasion,  which  has  caused  this 
meeting.  He  has  stated,  with  an  ac 
curacy  almost  peculiar  to  himself,  and 
so  stated  as,  in  my  opinion,  to  place  al 
most  beyond  further  controversy,  the 
true  doctrines  of  the  Constitution.  He 
has  stated,  not  notions  too  loose  and  ir 
regular  to  be  called  even  a  theory,  not 
ideas  struck  out  by  the  feeling  of  pres 
ent  inconvenience  or  supposed  male- 
administration,  not  suggestions  of  ex 
pediency,  or  evasions  of  fair  and 
straightforward  construction,  but  ele 
mentary  principles,  clear  and  sound  dis 
tinctions,  and  indisputable  truths.  I 
am  sure,  Gentlemen,  that  I  speak  your 
sentiments,  as  well  as  my  own,  when  I 
say,  that,  for  making  public  so  clearly 
and  distinctly  as  he  has  done  his 
own  opinions  on  these  vital  questions 
of  constitutional  law,  Mr.  Madison  has 
founded  a  new  and  strong  claim  on  the 
gratitude  of  a  grateful  country.  You 
will  think,  with  me,  that,  at  his  ad 
vanced  age,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of 
general  respect  and  approbation  for  a 
long  career  of  public  services,  it  was  an 
act  of  distinguished  patriotism,  when 
he  saw  notions  promulgated  and  main 
tained  which  he  deemed  unsound  and 
dangerous,  not  to  hesitate  to  come  for 
ward  and  to  place  the  weight  of  his  own 
opinion  in  what  he  deemed  the  right 
scale,  come  what  come  might.  I  am 
sure,  Gentlemen,  it  cannot  be  doubted, 
—  the  manifestation  is  clear,  —  that  the 
country  feels  deeply  the  force  of  this  new 
obligation.1 

Gentlemen,  what  I  have  said  of  the 
benefits  of  the  Constitution  to  your 
city  might  be  said,  with  little  change, 
in  respect  to  every  other  part  of  the 
country.  Its  benefits  are  not  exclusive. 
What  has  it  left  undone,  which  any 
government  could  do,  for  the  whole 

1  The  reference  is  to  Mr.  Madison's  letter  on 
the  subject  of  Nullification,  in  the  North  Ameri 
can  Review,  Vol.  XXXI.  p.  537. 


314 


PUBLIC   DINNER   AT  NEW   YORK. 


country?  In  what  condition  has  it 
placed  us?  Where  do  we  now  stand? 
Are  we  elevated,  or  degraded,  by  its 
operation?  What  is  our  condition  un 
der  its  influence,  at  the  very  moment 
when  some  talk  of  arresting  its  power 
and  breaking  its  unity?  Do  we  not  feel 
ourselves  on  an  eminence?  Do  we  not 
challenge  the  respect  of  the  whole  world? 
What  has  placed  us  thus  high?  What 
has  given  us  this  just  pride?  What  else 
is  it,  but  the  unrestrained  and  free  op 
eration  of  that  same  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  which  it  has  been  proposed  now 
to  hamper,  and  manacle,  and  nullify? 
Who  is  there  among  us,  that,  should  he 
find  himself  on  any  spot  of  the  earth 
where  human  beings  exist,  and  where 
the  existence  of  other  nations  is  known, 
would  not  be  proud  to  say,  I  am  an 
American?  I  am  a  countryman  of 
Washington?  I  am  a  citizen  of  that 
republic,  which,  although  it  has  sud 
denly  sprung  up,  yet  there  are  none  on 
the  globe  who  have  ears  to  hear,  and 
have  not  heard  of  it;  who  have  eyes  to 
see,  and  have  not  read  of  it;  who  know 
any  thing,  and  yet  do  not  know  of  its 
existence  and  its  glory?  And,  Gentle 
men,  let  me  now  reverse  the  picture. 
Let  me  ask,  who  there  is  among  us,  if 
he  were  to  be  found  to-morrow  in  one 
of  the  civilized  countries  of  Europe,  and 
were  there  to  learn  that  this  goodly  form 
of  government  had  been  overthrown, 
that  the  United  States  were  no  longer 
united,  that  a  death-blow  had  been 
struck  upon  their  bond  of  union,  that 
they  themselves  had  destroyed  their 
chief  good  and  their  chief  honor,  — who 
is  there  whose  heart  would  not  sink 
within  him?  Who  is  there  who  would 
not  cover  his  face  for  very  shame? 

At  this  very  moment,  Gentlemen,  our 
country  is  a  general  refuge  for  the  dis 
tressed  and  the  persecuted  of  other  na 
tions.  Whoever  is  in  affliction  from 
political  occurrences  in  his  own  country 
looks  here  for  shelter.  Whether  he  be 
republican,  flying  from  the  oppression  of 
thrones,  or  whether  he  be  monarch  or 
monarchist,  flying  from  thrones  that 
crumble  and  fall  under  or  around  him, 
he  feels  equal  assurance,  that,  if  he  get 


foothold  on  our  soil,  his  person  will  be 
safe,  and  his  rights  will  be  respected. 

And  wjio  will  venture  to  say,  that,  in 
any  government  now  existing  in  the 
world,  there  is  greater  security  for  per 
sons  or  property  than  in  that  of  the 
United  States?  We  have  tried  these 
popular  institutions  in  times  of  great  ex 
citement  and  commotion,  and  they  have 
stood,  substantially,  firm  and  steady, 
while  the  fountains  of  the  great  politi 
cal  deep  have  been  elsewhere  broken  up ; 
while  thrones,  resting  on  ages  of  pre 
scription,  have  tottered  and  fallen;  and 
while,  in  other  countries,  the  earthquake 
of  unrestrained  popular  commotion  has 
swallowed  up  all  law,  and  all  liberty,  and 
all  right  together.  Our  government  has 
been  tried  in  peace,  and  it  has  been  tried 
in  war,  and  has  proved  itself  fit  for  both. 
It  has  been  assailed  from  without,  and 
it  has  successfully  resisted  the  shock; 
it  has  been  disturbed  within,  and  it  has 
effectually  quieted  the  disturbance.  It 
can  stand  trial,  it  can  stand  assault,  it 
can  stand  adversity,  it  can  stand  every 
thing,  but  the  marring  of  its  own  beauty, 
and  the  weakening  of  its  own  strength. 
It  can  stand  every  thing  but  the  effects 
of  our  own  rashness  and  our  own  folly. 
It  can  stand  everything  but  disorganiza 
tion,  disunion,  and  nullification. 

It  is  a  striking  fact,  and  as  true  as  it 
is  striking,  that  at  this  very  moment, 
among  all  the  principal  civilized  states 
of  the  world,  that  government  is  most 
secure  against  the  danger  of  popular 
commotion  which  is  itself  entirely  popu 
lar.  It  seems,  indeed,  that  the  submis 
sion  of  every  thing  to  the  public  will, 
under  constitutional  restraints,  imposed 
by  the  people  themselves,  furnishes  it 
self  security  that  they  will  desire  noth 
ing  wrong. 

Certain  it  is,  that  popular,  constitu 
tional  liberty,  as  we  enjoy  it,  appears, 
in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  as 
sure  and  stable  a  basis  for  government 
to  rest  upon,  as  any  government  of  en 
lightened  states  can  find,  or  does  find. 
Certain  it  is,  that,  in  these  times  of 
so  much  popular  knowledge,  and  so 
much  popular  activity,  those  govern 
ments  which  do  not  admit  the  people 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW   YORK. 


315 


to  partake  in  their  administration,  but 
keep  them  under  and  beneath,  sit  on 
materials  for  an  explosion,  which  may 
take  place  at  any  moment,  and  blow 
them  into  a  thousand  atoms. 

Gentlemen,  let  any  man  who  would 
degrade  and  enfeeble  the  national  Con 
stitution,  let  any  man  who  would  nullify 
its  laws,  stand  forth  and  tell  us  what  he 
would  wish.  What  does  he  propose? 
Whatever  he  may  be,  and  whatever  sub 
stitute  he  may  hold  forth,  I  am  sure  the 
people  of  this  country  will  decline  his 
kind  interference,  and  hold  on  by  the 
Constitution  which  they  possess.  Any 
one  who  would  willingly  destroy  it,  I 
rejoice  to  know,  would  be  looked  upon 
with  abhorrence.  It  is  deeply  intrenched 
in  the  regards  of  the  people.  Doubtless 
it  may  be  undermined  by  artful  and 
long-continued  hostility;  it  may  be  im 
perceptibly  weakened  by  secret  attack; 
it  may  be  insidiously  shorn  of  its  powers 
by  slow  degrees;  the  public  vigilance 
may  be  lulled,  and  when  it  awakes,  it 
may  find  the  Constitution  frittered  away. 
In  these  modes,  or  some  of  them,  it  is 
possible  that  the  union  of  the  States 
may  be  dissolved. 

But  if  the  general  attention  of  the 
people  be  kept  alive,  if  they  see  the  in 
tended  mischief  before  it  is  effected, 
they  will  prevent  it  by  their  own  sover 
eign  power.  They  will  interpose  them 
selves  between  the  meditated  blow  and 
the  object  of  their  regard  and  attach 
ment.  Next  to  the  controlling  authority 
of  the  people  themselves,  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  government  is  mainly  com 
mitted  to  those  who  administer  it.  If 
conducted  in  wisdom,  it  cannot  but 
stand  strong.  Its  genuine,  original 
spirit  is  a  patriotic,  liberal,  and  gener 
ous  spirit;  a  spirit  of  conciliation,  of 
moderation,  of  candor,  and  charity;  a 
spirit  of  friendship,  and  not  a  spirit  of 
hostility  toward  the  States;  a  spirit 
careful  not  to  exceed,  and  equally  care 
ful  not  to  relinquish,  its  just  powers. 
While  no  interest  can  or  ought  to  feel 
itself  shut  out  from  the  benefits  of  the 
Constitution,  none  should  consider  those 
benefits  as  exclusively  its  own.  The 
interests  of  all  must  be  consulted,  and 


reconciled,  and  provided  for,  as  far  as 
possible,  that  all  may  perceive  the  bene 
fits  of  a  united  government. 

Among  other  things,  we  are  to  re 
member  that  new  States  have  arisen, 
possessing  already  an  immense  popula 
tion,  spreading  and  thickening  over  vast 
regions  which  were  a  wilderness  when 
the  Constitution  was  adopted.  Those 
States  are  not,  like  New  York,  directly 
connected  with  maritime  commerce. 
They  are  entirely  agricultural,  and  need 
markets  for  consumption ;  and  they  need, 
too,  access  to  those  markets.  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  government  to  bring  the 
interests  of  these  new  States  into  the 
Union,  and  incorporate  them  closely  in 
the  family  compact.  Gentlemen,  it  is 
not  impracticable  to  reconcile  these  vari 
ous  interests,  and  so  to  administer  the 
government  as  to  make  it  useful  to  all. 
It  was  never  easier  to  administer  the 
government  than  it  is  now.  We  are 
beset  with  none,  or  with  fewr,  of  its 
original  difficulties;  and  it  is  a  time  of 
great  general  prosperity  and  happiness. 
Shall  we  admit  ourselves  incompetent 
to  carry  on  the  government,  so  as  to  be 
satisfactory  to  the  whole  country ?  Shall 
we  admit  that  there  has  so  little  de 
scended  to  us  of  the  wisdom  and  pru 
dence  of  our  fathers?  If  the  government 
could  be  administered  in  Washington's 
time,  when  it  was  yet  new,  when  the 
country  was  heavily  in  debt,  when  foreign 
relations  were  in  a  threatening  condition, 
and  when  Indian  wars  pressed  on  the 
frontiers,  can  it  not  be  administered 
now  ?  Let  us  not  acknowledge  our 
selves  so  unequal  to  our  duties. 

Gentlemen,  on  the  occasion  referred 
to  by  the  chair,  it  became  necessary  to 
consider  the  judicial  power,  and  its 
proper  functions  under  the  Constitution. 
In  every  free  and  balanced  government, 
this  is  a  most  essential  and  important 
power.  Indeed,  I  think  it  is  a  remark 
of  Mr.  Hume,  that  the  administration  of 
justice  seems  to  be  the  leading  object  of 
institutions  of  government;  that  legis 
latures  assemble,  that  armies  are  em 
bodied,  that  both  war  and  peace  are 
made,  with  a  sort  of  ultimate  reference 
to  the  proper  administration  of  laws, 


316 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW  YORK. 


and  the  judicial  protection  of  private 
rights.  The  judicial  power  comes  home 
to  every  man.  If  the  legislature  passes 
incorrect  or  unjust  general  laws,  its  mem 
bers  bear  the  evil  as  well  as  others.  But 
judicature  acts  on  individuals.  It  touches 
every  private  right,  every  private  in 
terest,  and  almost  every  private  feeling. 
What  we  possess  is  hardly  fit  to  be 
called  our  own,  unless  we  feel  secure  in 
its  possession;  and  this  security,  this 
feeling  of  perfect  safety,  cannot  exist 
under  a  wicked,  or  even  under  a  weak 
and  ignorant,  administration  of  the 
laws.  There  is  no  happiness,  there  is 
no  liberty,  there  is  no  enjoyment  of  life, 
unless  a  man  can  say  when  he  rises  in 
the  morning,  I  shall  be  subject  to  the 
decision  of  no  unjust  judge  to-day. 

But,  Gentlemen,  the  judicial  depart 
ment,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  possesses  still  higher 
duties.  It  is  true,  that  it  may  be 
called  on,  and  is  occasionally  called  on, 
to  decide  questions  which  are,  in  one 
sense,  of  a  political  nature.  The  general 
and  State  governments,  both  established 
by  the  people,  are  established  for  differ 
ent  purposes,  and  with  different  powers. 
Between  those  powers  questions  may 
arise;  and  who  shall  decide  them? 
Some  provision  for  this  end  is  absolutely 
necessary.  What  shall  it  be  ?  This  was 
the  question  before  the  Convention ;  and 
various  schemes  were  suggested.  It  was 
foreseen  that  the  States  might  inadver 
tently  pass  laws  inconsistent  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or 
with  acts  of  Congress.  At  least,  laws 
might  be  passed  which  would  be  charged 
with  such  inconsistency.  How  should 
these  questions  be  disposed  of?  Where 
shall  the  power  of  judging,  in  cases  of 
alleged  interference,  be  lodged?  One 
suggestion  in  the  Convention  was,  to 
make  it  an  executive  power,  and  to 
lodge  it  in  the  hands  of  the  President, 
by  requiring  all  State  laws  to  be  sub 
mitted  to  him,  that  he  might  negative 
such  as  he  thought  appeared  repugnant 
to  the  general  Constitution.  This  idea, 
perhaps,  may  have  been  borrowed  from 
the  power  exercised  by  the  crown  over 
the  laws  of  the  Colonies.  It  would  evi 


dently  have  been,  not  only  an  inconven 
ient  and  troublesome  proceeding,  but 
dangerous  also  to  the  powers  of  the 
States.  It  was  not  pressed.  It  was 
thought  wiser  and  safer,  on  the  whole, 
to  require  State  legislatures  and  State 
judges  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
then  leave  the  States  at  liberty  to  pass 
whatever  laws  they  pleased,  and  if  in 
terference,  in  point  of  fact,  should  arise, 
to  refer  the  question  to  judicial  decision. 
To  this  end,  the  judicial  power,  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
was  made  coextensive  with  the  legisla 
tive  power.  It  was  extended  to  all 
cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws  of  Congress.  The  judiciary 
became  thus  possessed  of  the  authority 
of  deciding,  in  the  last  resort,  in  all 
cases  of  alleged  interference,  between 
State  laws  and  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  Congress. 

Gentlemen,  this  is  the  actual  Consti 
tution,  this  is  the  law  of  the  land. 
There  may  be  those  who  think  it  un 
necessary,  or  who  would  prefer  a  differ 
ent  mode  of  deciding  such  questions. 
But  this  is  the  established  mode,  and, 
till  it  be  altered,  the  courts  can  no  more 
decline  their  duty  on  these  occasions 
than  on  other  occasions.  But  can  any 
reasonable  man  doubt  the  expediency  of 
this  provision,  or  suggest  a  better?  Is 
it  not  absolutely  essential  to  the  peace 
of  the  country  that  this  power  should 
exist  somewhere  ?  Where  can  it  exist, 
better  than  where  it  now  does  exist  ? 
The  national  judiciary  is  the  common 
tribunal  of  the  whole  country.  It  is 
organized  by  the  common  authority,  and 
its  places  filled  by  the  common  agent. 
This  is  a  plain  and  practical  provision. 
It  was  framed  by  no  bunglers,  nor  by 
any  wild  theorists.  And  who  can  say 
that  it  has  failed  ?  Who  can  find  sub 
stantial  fault  with  its  operation  or  its 
results?  The  great  question  is,  whether 
we  shall  provide  for  the  peaceable  decis 
ion  of  cases  of  collision.  Shall  they  be 
decided  by  law,  or  by  force  ?  Shall  the 
decisions  be  decisions  of  peace,  or  decis 
ions  of  war  ? 

On  the  occasion  which  has  given  rise 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW  YORK. 


317 


to  this  meeting,  the  proposition  con 
tended  for  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
just  stated  was,  that  every  State,  under 
certain  supposed  exigencies,  and  in  cer 
tain  supposed  cases,  might  decide  for 
itself,  and  act  for  itself,  and  oppose  its 
own  force  to  the  execution  of  the  laws. 
By  what  argument,  do  you  imagine, 
Gentlemen,  was  such  a  proposition 
maintained?  I  should  call  it  meta 
physical  and  subtle;  but  these  terms 
would  imply  at  least  ingenuity,  and 
some  degree  of  plausibility ;  whereas  the 
argument  appears  to  me  plain  assump 
tion,  mere  perverse  construction  of  plain 
language  in  the  body  of  the  Constitution 
itself.  As  I  understand  it,  when  put 
forth  in  its  revised  and  most  authentic 
shape,  it  is  this  :  that  the  Constitution 
provides  that  any  amendments  may  be 
made  to  it  which  shall  be  agreed  to  by 
three  fourths  of  the  States;  there  is, 
therefore,  to  be  nothing  in  the  Constitu 
tion  to  which  three  fourths  of  the  States 
have  not  agreed.  All  this  is  true;  but 
then  comes  this  inference,  namely, 
that,  when  one  State  denies  the  con 
stitutionality  of  any  law  of  Congress, 
she  may  arrest  its  execution  as  to 
herself,  and  keep  it  arrested,  till  the 
States  can  all  be  consulted  by  their 
conventions,  and  three  fourths  of  them 
shall  have  decided  that  the  law  is  con 
stitutional.  Indeed,  the  inference  is 
still  stranger  than  this;  for  State  con 
ventions  have  no  authority  to  construe 
the  Constitution,  though  they  have 
authority  to  amend  it ;  therefore  the 
argument  must  prove,  if  it  prove  any 
thing,  that,  when  any  one  State  de 
nies  that  any  particular  power  is  in 
cluded  in  the  Constitution,  it  is  to  be 
considered  as  not  included,  and  cannot 
be  found  there  till  three  fourths  of  the 
States  agree  to  insert  it.  In  short,  the 
result  of  the  whole  is,  that,  though  it 
requires  three  fourths  of  the  States  to 
insert  any  thing  in  the  Constitution,  yet 
any  one  State  can  strike  any  thing  out 
of  it.  For  the  power  to  strike  out,  and 
the  power  of  deciding,  without  appeal, 
upon  the  construction  of  what  is  already 
in,  are  substantially  and  practically  the 
same. 


And,  Gentlemen,  what  a  spectacle 
should  we  have  exhibited  under  the 
actual  operation  of  notions  like  these! 
At  the  very  moment  when  our  govern 
ment  was  quoted,  praised,  and  com 
mended  all  over  the  world,  when  the 
friends  of  republican  liberty  every 
where  were  gazing  at  it  with  delight, 
and  were  in  perfect  admiration  at  the 
harmony  of  its  movements,  one  State 
steps  forth,  and,  by  the  power  of  nulli 
fication,  breaks  up  the  whole  system, 
and  scatters  the  bright  chain  of  the 
Union  into  as  many  sundered  links  as 
there  are  separate  States! 

Seeing  the  true  grounds  of  the  Con 
stitution  thus  attacked,  I  raised  my 
voice  in  its  favor,  I  must  confess  with 
no  preparation  or  previous  intention.  I 
can  hardly  say  that  I  embarked  in  the 
contest  from  a  sense  of  duty.  It  was 
an  instantaneous  impulse  of  inclination, 
not  acting  against  duty,  I  trust,  but 
hardly  waiting  for  its  suggestions.  I 
felt  it  to  be  a  contest  for  the  integrity 
of  the  Constitution,  and  I  was  ready  to 
enter  into  it,  not  thinking,  or  caring, 
personally,  how  I  might  come  out. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  true  pleasure  in 
saying  that  I  trust  the  crisis  has  in 
some  measure  passed  by.  The  doctrines 
of  nullification  have  received  a  severe 
and  stern  rebuke  from  public  opinion. 
The  general  reprobation  of  the  country 
has  been  cast  upon  them.  Recent  ex 
pressions  of  the  most  numerous  branch 
of  the  national  legislature  are  decisive 
and  imposing.  Everywhere,  the  gen 
eral  tone  of  public  feeling  is  for  the 
Constitution.  While  much  will  be 
yielded  —  every  thing,  almost,  but  the 
integrity  of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
essential  interests  of  the  country  —  to 
the  cause  of  mutual  harmony  and  mut 
ual  conciliation,  no  ground  can  be 
granted,  not  an  inch,  to  menace  and 
bluster.  Indeed,  menace  and  bluster, 
and  the  putting  forth  of  daring,  uncon 
stitutional  doctrines,  are,  at  this  very 
moment,  the  chief  obstacles  to  mutual 
harmony  and  satisfactory  accommoda 
tion  Men  cannot  well  reason,  and  con 
fer,  and  take  counsel  together,  about  the 
discreet  exercise  of  a  power,  with  those 


318 


PUBLIC  DINNER  AT  NEW  YORK. 


who  deny  that  any  such  power  right 
fully  exists,  and  who  threaten  to  blow 
up  the  whole  Constitution  if  they  can 
not  otherwise  get  rid  of  its  operation. 
It  is  matter  of  sincere  gratification, 
Gentlemen,  that  the  voice  of  this  great 
State  has  been  so  clear  and  strong,  and 
her  vote  all  but  unanimous,  on  the  most 
interesting  of  these  occasions,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  Certainly, 
such  respect  to  the  Union  becomes  New 
York.  It  is  consistent  with  her  inter 
ests  and  her  character.  That  singularly 
prosperous  State,  which  now  is,  and  is 
likely  to  continue  to  be,  the  greatest 
link  in  the  chain  of  the  Union,  will 
ever  be,  I  am  sure,  the  strongest  link 
also.  The  great  States  which  lie  in  her 
neighborhood  agreed  with  her  fully  in 
this  matter.  Pennsylvania,  I  believe, 
was  loyal  to  the  Union,  to  a  man;  and 
Ohio  raises  her  voice,  like  that  of  a 
lion,  against  whatsoever  threatens  dis 
union  and  dismemberment.  This  har 
mony  of  sentiment  is  truly  gratifying. 
It  is  not  to  be  gainsaid,  that  the  union 
of  opinion  in  this  great  central  mass  of 
our  population,  on  this  momentous  point 
of  the  Constitution,  augurs  well  for  our 
future  prosperity  and  security. 

I  have  said,  Gentlemen,  what  I  verily 
believe  to  be  true,  that  there  is  no  dan 
ger  to  the  Union  from  open  and  avowed 
attacks  on  its  essential  principles.  Noth 
ing  is  to  be  feared  from  those  who  will 
march  up  boldly  to  their  own  proposi 
tions,  and  tell  us  that  they  mean  to  an 
nihilate  powers  exercised  by  Congress. 
But,  certainly,  there  are  dangers  to  the 
Constitution,  and  we  ought  not  to  shut 
our  eyes  to  them.  We  know  the  im 
portance  of  a  firm  and  intelligent  judi 
ciary;  but  how  shall  we  secure  the 
continuance  of  a  firm  and  intelligent 
judiciary?  Gentlemen,  the  judiciary  is 
in  the  appointment  of  the  executive 
power.  It  cannot  continue  or  renew 
itself.  Its  vacancies  are  to  be  filled  in 
the  ordinary  modes  of  executive  ap 
pointment.  If  the  time  shall  ever  come 
(which  Heaven  avert),  when  men  shall 
be  placed  in  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the 
country,  who  entertain  opinions  hostile 
to  the  just  powers  of  the  Constitution, 


we  shall  then  be  visited  by  an  evil  defy- 
i  ing  all  remedy.  Our  case  will  be  past 
surgery.  From  that  moment  the  Con 
stitution  is  at  an  end.  If  they  who  are 
appointed  to  defend  the  castle  shall  be 
tray  it,  woe  betide  those  within!  If  I 
live  to  see  that  day  come,  I  shall  despair 
of  the  country.  I  shall  be  prepared  to 
give  it  back  to  all  its  former  afflictions, 
in  the  days  of  the  Confederation.  I 
know  no  security  against  the  possibility 
of  this  evil,  but  an  awakened  public 
vigilance.  I  know  no  safety,  but  in 
that  state  of  public  opinion  which  shall 
lead  it  to  rebuke  and  put  down  every 
attempt,  either  to  gratify  party  by  judi 
cial  appointments,  or  to  dilute  the  Con 
stitution  by  creating  a  court  which  shall 
construe  away  its  provisions.  If  mem 
bers  of  Congress  betray  their  trust,  the 
people  will  find  it  out  before  they  are 
ruined.  If  the  President  should  at  any 
time  violate  his  duty,  his  term  of  office 
is  short,  and  popular  elections  may  sup 
ply  a  seasonable  remedy.  But  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  possess,  for  very 
good  reasons,  an  independent  tenure  of 
office.  No  election  reaches  them.  If, 
with  this  tenure,  they  betray  their  trusts, 
Heaven  save  us !  Let  us  hope  for  better 
results.  The  past,  certainly,  may  en 
courage  us.  Let  us  hope  that  we  shall 
never, see  the  time  when  there  shall  exist 
such  an  awkward  posture  of  affairs,  as 
that  the  government  shall  be  found  in 
opposition  to  the  Constitution,  and  when 
the  guardians  of  the  Union  shall  become 
its  betrayers. 

Gentlemen,  our  country  stands,  at  the 
present  time,  on  commanding  ground. 
Older  nations,  with  different  systems  of 
government,  may  be  somewhat  slow  to 
acknowledge  all  that  justly  belongs  to 
us.  But  we  may  feel  without  vanity, 
that  America  is  doing  her  part  in  the 
great  work  of  improving  human  affairs. 
There  are  two  principles,  Gentlemen, 
strictly  and  purely  American,  which  are 
now  likely  to  prevail  throughout  the  civ 
ilized  world.  Indeed,  they  seem  the 
necessary  result  of  the  progress  of  civ 
ilization  and  knowledge.  These  are, 
first,  popular  governments,  restrained 


PUBLIC   DINNER  AT  NEW   YORK. 


319 


by  written  constitutions;  and,  secondly, 
universal  education.  Popular  govern 
ments  and  general  education,  acting 
and  reacting,  mutually  producing  and 
reproducing  each  other,  are  the  mighty 
agencies  which  in  our  days  appear  to 
be  exciting,  stimulating,  and  changing 
civilized  societies.  Man,  everywhere,  is 
now  found  demanding  a  participation 
in  government,  —  and  he  will  not  be 
refused;  and  he  demands  knowledge  as 
necessary  to  self-government.  On  the 
basis  of  these  two  principles,  liberty 
and  knowledge,  our  own  American  sys 
tems  rest.  Thus  far  we  have  not  been 
disappointed  in  their  results.  Our 
existing  institutions,  raised  on  these 
foundations,  have  conferred  on  us  al 
most  unmixed  happiness.  Do  we  hope 
to  better  our  condition  by  change? 
When  we  shall  have  nullified  the  pres 
ent  Constitution,  what  are  we  to  receive 
in  its  place?  As  fathers,  do  we  wish 
for  our  children  better  government,  or 
better  laws?  As  members  of  society, 
as  lovers  of  our  country,  is  there  any 
thing  we  can  desire  for  it  better  than 
that,  as  ages  and  centuries  roll  over  it, 
it  may  possess  the  same  invaluable  in 
stitutions  which  it  now  enjoys?  For 
my  part,  Gentlemen,  I  can  only  say, 
that  I  desire  to  thank  the  beneficent 
Author  of  all  good  for  being  born  where 
I  was  born,  and  when  I  was  born;  that 
the  portion  of  human  existence  allotted 
to  me  has  been  meted  out  to  me  in  this 
goodly  land,  and  at  this  interesting 
period.  I  rejoice  that  I  have  lived  to 
see  so  much  development  of  truth,  so 
much  progress  of  liberty,  so  much  dif 
fusion  of  virtue  and  happiness.  And, 
through  good  report  and  evil  report,  it 
will  be  my  consolation  to  be  a  citizen  of 
a  republic  unequalled  in  the  annals  of 
the  world  for  the  freedom  of  its  institu 
tions,  its  high  prosperity,  and  the  pros 
pects  of  good  which  yet  lie  before  it. 
Our  course,  Gentlemen,  is  onward, 
straight  onward,  and  forward.  Let  us 
not  turn  to  the  right  hand,  nor  to  the 


left.  Our  path  is  marked  out  for  us, 
clear,  plain,  bright,  distinctly  denned, 
like  the  milky  way  across  the  heavens. 
If  we  are  true  to  our  country,  in  our 
day  and  generation,  and  those  who  come 
after  us  shall  be  true  to  it  also,  assuredly, 
assuredly,  we  shall  elevate  her  to  a  pitch 
of  prosperity  and  happiness,  of  honor 
and  power,  never  yet  reached  by  any 
nation  beneath  the  sun. 

Gentlemen,  before  I  resume  my  seat, 
a  highly  gratifying  duty  remains  to  be 
performed.  In  signifying  your  senti 
ments  of  regard,  you  have  kindly  chosen 
to  select  as  your  organ  for  expressing 
them  the  eminent  person  l  near  whom  I 
stand.  I  feel,  I  cannot  well  say  how 
sensibly,  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
seen  fit  to  speak  on  this  occasion. 
Gentlemen,  if  I  may  be  supposed  to 
have  made  any  attainment  in  the  knowl 
edge  of  constitutional  law,  he  is  among 
the  masters  in  whose  schools  I  have  been 
taught.  You  see  near  him  a  distin 
guished  magistrate,2  long  associated 
with  him  in  judicial  labors,  which  have 
conferred  lasting  benefits  and  lasting 
character,  not  only  on  the  State,  but  on 
the  whole  country.  Gentlemen,  I  ac 
knowledge  myself  much  their  debtor. 
While  yet  a  youth,  unknown,  and  with 
little  expectation  of  becoming  known 
beyond  a  very  limited  circle,  I  have 
passed  days  and  nights,  not  of  tedious, 
but  of  happy  and  gratified  labor,  in  the 
study  of  the  judicature  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  I  am  most  happy  to  have 
this  public  opportunity  of  acknowledg 
ing  the  obligation,  and  of  repaying  it,  as 
far  as  it  can  be  repaid,  by  the  poor  trib 
ute  of  my  profound  regard,  and  the 
earnest  expression  of  my  sincere  re 
spect. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  no  longer  detain 
you  than  to  propose  a  toast :  — 

The  City  of  New  York;  herself  the 
noblest  eulogy  on  the  Union  of  the 
States. 

1  Chancellor  Kent,  the  presiding  officer. 

2  Judge  Spencer. 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    VETO    OF    THE    UNITED 
STATES   BANK   BILL. 

A  SPEECH    DELIVERED  IN    THE    SENATE  OF  THE    UNITED    STATES,   ON    THE 
HTH  OF  JULY,   1832,   ON  THE  PRESIDENT'S  VETO  OF  THE  BANK    BILL. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  No  one  will  deny 
the  high  importance  of  the  subject  now 
before  us.  Congress,  after  full  deliber 
ation  and  discussion,  has  passed  a  bill, 
by  decisive  majorities,  in  both  houses,  for 
extending  the  duration  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States.  It  has  not  adopted 
this  measure  until  its  attention  had 
been  called  to  the  subject,  in  three  suc 
cessive  annual  messages  of  the  Presi 
dent.  The  bill  having  been  thus  passed 
by  both  houses,  and  having  been  duly 
presented  to  the  President,  instead  of 
signing  and  approving  it,  he  has  re 
turned  it  with  objections.  These  objec 
tions  go  against  the  whole  substance  of 
the  law  originally  creating  the  bank. 
They  deny,  in  effect,  that  the  bank  is 
constitutional ;  they  deny  that  it  is  expe 
dient  ;  they  deny  that  it  is  necessary  for 
the  public  service. 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  Con 
stitution  gives  the  President  the  power 
which  he  has  now  exercised ;  but  while 
the  power  is  admitted,  the  grounds  upon 
which  it  has  been  exerted  become  fit 
subjects  of  examination.  The  Consti 
tution  makes  it  the  duty  of  Congress, 
in  cases  like  this,  to  reconsider  the 
measure  which  they  have  passed,  to 
weigh  the  force  of  the  President's  ob 
jections  to  that  measure,  and  to  take  a 
new  vote  upon  the  question. 

Before  the  Senate  proceeds  to  this 
second  vote,  I  propose  to  make  some 
remarks  upon  those  objections.  And, 
in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  they  are  such  as  to  extinguish  all 


hope  that  the  present  bank,  or  any  bank 
at  all  resembling  it,  or  resembling  any 
known  similar  institution,  can  ever  re 
ceive  his  approbation.  He  states  no 
terms,  no  qualifications,  no  conditions,  no 
modifications,  which  can  reconcile  him  to 
the  essential  provisions  of  the  existing 
charter.  He  is  against  the  bank,  and 
against  any  bank  constituted  in  a  manner 
known  either  to  this  or  any  other  country. 
One  advantage,  therefore,  is  certainly 
obtained  by  presenting  him  the  bill.  It 
has  caused  the  President's  sentiments 
to  be  made  known.  There  is  no  longer 
any  mystery,  no  longer  a  contest  be 
tween  hope  and  fear,  or  between  those 
prophets  who  predicted  a  veto  and  those 
who  foretold  an  approval.  The  bill  is 
negatived;  the  President  has  assumed 
the  responsibility  of  putting  an  end  to 
the  bank ;  and  the  country  must  prepare 
itself  to  meet  that  change  in  its  concerns 
which  the  expiration  of  the  charter 
will  produce.  Mr.  President,  I  will  not 
conceal  my  opinion  that  the  affairs  of 
the  country  are  approaching  an  impor 
tant  and  dangerous  crisis.  At  the  very 
moment  of  almost  unparalleled  general 
prosperity,  there  appears  an  unaccount 
able  disposition  to  destroy  the  most  use 
ful  and  most  approved  institutions  of  the 
government.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  in 
the  midst  of  all  this  national  happiness 
that  some  are  found  openly  to  question 
the  advantages  of  the  Constitution  itself; 
and  many  more  ready  to  embarrass  the 
exercise  of  its  just  power,  weaken  its 
authority,  and  undermine  its  founda- 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO. 


321 


tions.  How  far  these  notions  may  be 
carried,  it  is  impossible  yet  to  say.  We 
have  before  us  the  practical  result  of  one 
of  them.  The  bank  has  fallen,  or  is  to 
fall. 

It  is  now  certain,  that,  without  a 
change  in  our  public  counsels,  this  bank 
will  not  be  continued,  nor  will  any  other 
be  established,  which,  according  to  the 
general  sense  and  language  of  mankind, 
can  be  entitled  to  the  name.  Within 
three  years  and  nine  months  from  the 
present  moment,  the  charter  of  the  bank 
expires;  within  that  period,  therefore, 
it  must  wind  up  its  concerns.  It  must 
call  in  its  debts,  withdraw  its  bills  from 
circulation,  and  cease  from  a'll  its  ordi 
nary  operations.  All  this  is  to  be  done 
in  three  years  and  nine  months;  be 
cause,  although  there  is  a  provision  in 
the  charter  rendering  it  lawful  to  use  the 
corporate  name  for  two  years  after  the 
expiration  of  the  charter,  yet  this  is 
allowed  only  for  the  purpose  of  suits 
and  for  the  sale  of  the  estate  belonging 
to  the  bank,  and  for  no  other  purpose 
whatever.  The  whole  active  business 
of  the  bank,  its  custody  of  public  de 
posits,  its  transfer  of  public  moneys,  its 
dealing  in  exchange,  all  its  loans  and 
discounts,  and  all  its  issues  of  bills 
for  circulation,  must  cease  and  deter 
mine  on  or  before  the  third  day  of 
March,  1836;  and  within  the  same 
period  its  debts  must  be  collected,  as  no 
new  contract  can  be  made  with  it,  as  a 
corporation,  for  the  renewal  of  loans,  or 
discount  of  notes  or  bills,  after  that  time. 

The  President  is  of  opinion,  that  this 
time  is  long  enough  to  close  the  concerns 
of  the  institution  without  inconvenience. 
His  language  is,  "  The  time  allowed  the 
bank  to  close  its  concerns  is  ample,  and 
if  it  has  been  well  managed,  its  press 
ure  will  be  light,  and  heavy  only  in  case 
its  management  has  been  bad.  If,  there 
fore,  it  shall  produce  distress,  the  fault 
will  be  its  own."  Sir,  this  is  all  no  more 
than  general  statement,  without  fact  or 
argument  to  support  it.  We  know  what 
the  management  of  the  bank  has  been, 
and  we  know  the  present  state  of  its  af 
fairs.  We  can  judge,  therefore,  whether 
it  be  probable  that  its  capital  can  be  all 


called  in,  and  the  circulation  of  its 
bills  withdrawn,  in  three  years  and  nine 
months,  by  any  discretion  or  prudence  in 
management,  without  producing  distress. 
The  bank  has  discounted  liberally,  in 
compliance  with  the  wants  of  the  com 
munity.  The  amount  due  to  it  on  loans 
and  discounts,  in  certain  large  divisions 
of  the  country,  is  great;  so  great,  that 
I  do  not  perceive  how  any  man  can  be 
lieve  that  it  can  be  paid,  within  the 
time  now  limited,  without  distress.  Let 
us  look  at  known  facts.  Thirty  mil 
lions  of  the  capital  of  the  bank  are  now 
out,  on  loans  and  discounts,  in  the 
States  on  the  Mississippi  and  its  waters ; 
ten  millions  of  which  are  loaned  on  the 
discount  of  bills  of  exchange,  foreign 
and  domestic,  and  twenty  millions  on 
promissory  notes.  Now,  Sir,  how  is  it 
possible  that  this  vast  amount  can  be 
collected  in  so  short  a  period  without 
suffering,  by  any  management  whatever? 
We  are  to  remember,  that,  when  the 
collection  of  this  debt  begins,  at  that 
same  time  the  existing  medium  of  pay 
ment,  that  is,  the  circulation  of  the  bills 
of  the  bank,  will  begin  also  to  be  re 
strained  and  withdrawn;  and  thus  the 
means  of  payment  must  be  limited  just 
when  the  necessity  of  making  payment 
becomes  pressing.  The  whole  debt  is 
to  be  paid,  and  within  the  same  time 
the  whole  circulation  withdrawn. 

The  local  banks,  where  there  are  such, 
will  be  able  to  afford  little  assistance; 
because  they  themselves  will  feel  a  full 
share  of  the  pressure.  They  will  not  be 
in  a  condition  to  extend  their  discounts, 
but,  in  all  probability,  obliged  to  cur 
tail  them.  Whence,  then,  are  the  means 
to  come  for  paying  this  debt?  and  in 
wyhat  medium  is  payment  to  be  made? 
If  all  this  may  be  done  with  but  slight 
pressure  on  the  community,  what  course 
of  conduct  is  to  accomplish  it?  How  is 
it  to  be  done  ?  What  other  thirty  mil 
lions  are  to  supply  the  place  of  these 
thirty  millions  now  to  be  called  in? 
What  other  circulation  or  medium  of 
payment  is  to  be  adopted  in  the  place  of 
the  bills  of  the  bank?  The  message, 
following  a.  singular  train  of  argument, 
which  had  been  used  in  this  house,  has 


•21 


322 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


a  loud  lamentation  upon  the  suffering  of 
the  Western  States  on  account  of  their 
being  obliged  to  pay  even  interest  on 
this  debt.  This  payment  of  interest  is 
itself  represented  as  exhausting  their 
means  and  ruinous  to  their  prosperity. 
But  if  the  interest  cannot  be  paid  with 
out  pressure,  can  both  interest  and  prin 
cipal  be  paid  in  four  years  without 
pressure?  The  truth  is,  the  interest  has 
been  paid,  is  paid,  and  may  continue  to 
be  paid,  without  any  pressure  at  all; 
because  the  money  borrowed  is  profit 
ably  employed  by  those  who  borrow  it, 
and  the  rate  of  interest  which  they  pay 
is  at  least  two  per  cent  lower  than  the 
actual  value  of  money  in  that  part  of 
the  country.  But  to  pay  the  whole 
principal  in  less  than  four  years,  losing, 
at  the  same  time,  the  existing  and  ac 
customed  means  and  facilities  of  pay 
ment  created  by  the  bank  itself,  and  to 
do  this  without  extreme  embarrassment, 
without  absolute  distress,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  impossible.  I  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that,  as  this  veto  travels  to  the 
West,  it  will  depreciate  the  value  of 
every  man's  property  from  the  Atlantic 
States  to  the  capital  of  Missouri.  Its 
effects  will  be  felt  in  the  price  of  lands, 
the  great  and  leading  article  of  Western 
property,  in  the  price  of  crops,  in  the 
products  of  labor,  in  the  repression  of 
enterprise,  and  in  embarrassment  to 
every  kind  of  business  and  occupation. 
I  state  this  opinion  strongly,  because  I 
have  no  doubt  of  its  truth,  and  am 
willing  its  correctness  should  be  judged 
by  the  event.  Without  personal  ac 
quaintance  with  the  Western  States,  I 
know  enough  of  their  condition  to  be 
satisfied  that  what  I  have  predicted  must 
happen.  The  people  of  the  West  are 
rich,  but  their  riches  consist  in  their 
immense  quantities  of  excellent  land, 
in  the  products  of  these  lands,  and  in 
their  spirit  of  enterprise.  The  actual 
value  of  money,  or  rate  of  interest,  with 
them  is  high,  because  their  pecuniary 
capital  bears  little  proportion  to  their 
landed  interest.  At  an  average  rate, 
money  is  not  worth  less  than  eight  per 
cent  per  annum  throughout  the  whole 
Western  country,  notwithstanding  that 


it  has  now  a  loan  or  an  advance  from 
the  bank  of  thirty  millions,  at  six  per 
cent.  To  call  in  this  loan,  at  the  rate 
of  eight  millions  a  year,  in  addition  to 
the  interest  on  the  whole,  and  to  take 
away,  at  the  same  time,  that  circulation 
which  constitutes  so  great  a  portion  of 
the  medium  of  payment  throughout  that 
whole  region,  is  an  operation,  which, 
however  wisely  conducted,  cannot  but 
inflict  a  blow  on  the  community  of  tre 
mendous  force  and  frightful  consequen 
ces.  The  thing  cannot  be  done  without 
distress,  bankruptcy,  and  ruin,  to  many. 
If  the  President  had  seen  anjr  practical 
manner  in  which  this  change  might  be 
effected  without  producing  these  conse 
quences,  he  would  have  rendered  infinite 
service  to  the  community  by  pointing  it 
out.  But  he  has  pointed  out  nothing, 
he  has  suggested  nothing;  he  contents 
himself  with  saying,  without  giving  any 
reason,  that,  if  the  pressure  be  heavy, 
the  fault  will  be  the  bank's.  I  hope 
this  is  not  merely  an  attempt  to  fore 
stall  opinion,  and  to  throw  on  the  bank 
the  responsibility  of  those  evils  which 
threaten  the  country,  for  the  sake  of 
removing  it  from  himself. 

The  responsibility  justly  lies  with  him, 
and  there  it  ought  to  remain.  A  great 
majority  of  the  people  are  satisfied  with 
the  bank  as  it  is,  and  desirous  that  it 
should  be  continued.  They  wished  no 
change.  The  strength  of  this  public 
sentiment  has  carried  the  bill  through 
Congress,  against  all  the  influence  of  the 
administration,  and  all  the  power  of  or 
ganized  party.  But  the  President  has 
undertaken,  on  his  own  responsibility, 
to  arrest  the  measure,  by  refusing  his 
assent  to  the  bill.  He  is  answerable 
for  the  consequences,  therefore,  which 
necessarily  follow  the  change  which  the 
expiration  of  the  bank  charter  may  pro 
duce;  and  if  these  consequences  shall 
prove  disastrous,  they  can  fairly  be  as 
cribed  to  his  policy  only,  and  the  policy 
of  his  administration. 

Although,  Sir,  I  have  spoken  of  the 
effects  of  this  veto  in  the  Western  coun 
try,  it  has  not  been  because  I  considered 
that  part  of  the  United  States  exclu 
sively  affected  by  it.  Some  of  the  At- 


OF   THE   UNITED    STATES  BANK   BILL. 


323 


lantic  States  may  feel  its  consequences, 
perhaps,  as  sensibly  as  those  of  the 
West,  though  not  for  the  same  reasons. 
The  concern  manifested  by  Pennsylva 
nia  for  the  renewal  of  the  charter  shows 
her  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  bank 
to  her  own  interest,  and  that  of  the  na 
tion.  That  great  and  enterprising  State 
has  entered  into  an  extensive  system  of 
internal  improvements,  which  necessa 
rily  makes  heavy  demands  on  her  credit 
and  her  resources ;  and  by  the  sound  and 
acceptable  currency  which  the  bank  af 
fords,  by  the  stability  which  it  gives  to 
private  credit,  and  by  occasional  ad 
vances,  made  in  anticipation  of  her  rev 
enues,  and  in  aid  of  her  great  objects, 
she  has  found  herself  benefited,  doubt 
less,  in  no  inconsiderable  degree.  Her 
legislature  has  instructed  her  Senators 
here  to  advocate  the  renewal  of  the 
charter,  at  this  session.  They  have 
obeyed  her  voice,  and  yet  they  have  the 
misfortune  to  find  that,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  President,  the  measure  is  unconsti 
tutional,  unnecessary,  dangerous  to  liberty, 
and  is,  moreover,  ill-timed. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  not  the  local 
interest  of  the  West,  nor  the  particular 
interest  of  Pennsylvania,  or  any  other 
State,  which  has  influenced  Congress 
in  passing  this  bill.  It  has  been  gov 
erned  by  a  wise  foresight,  and  by  a 
desire  to  avoid  embarrassment  in  the 
pecuniary  concerns  of  the  country,  to 
secure  the  safe  collection  and  conven 
ient  transmission  of  public  moneys,  to 
maintain  the  circulation  of  the  country, 
sound  and  safe  as  it  now  happily  is, 
against  the  possible  effects  of  a  wild 
spirit  of  speculation.  Finding  the  bank 
highly  useful,  Congress  has  thought  fit 
to  provide  for  its  continuance. 

As  to  the  time  of  passing  this  bill,  it 
would  seem  to  be  the  last  thing  to  be 
thought  of,  as  a  ground  of  objection,  by 
the  President;  since,  from  the  date  of 
his  first  message  to  the  present  time,  he 
has  never  failed  to  call  our  attention  to 
the  subject  with  all  possible  apparent 
earnestness.  So  early  as  December, 
1829,  in  his  message  to  the  two  houses, 
he  declares,  that  he  "cannot,  in  justice 
to  the  parties  interested,  tco  soon  pre 


sent  the  subject  to  the  deliberate  consid 
eration  of  the  legislature,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  evils  resulting  from  precipi 
tancy,  in  a  measure  involving  such 
important  principles  and  such  deep  pe 
cuniary  interests. "  Aware  of  this  early 
invitation  given  to  Congress  to  take  up 
the  subject,  by  the  President  himself, 
the  writer  of  the  message  seems  to  vary 
the  ground  of  objection,  and,  instead  of 
complaining  that  the  time  of  bringing 
forward  this  measure  was  premature,  to 
insist,  rather,  that,  after  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  the  other  house,  the 
bank  should  have  withdrawn  its  appli 
cation  for  the  present !  But  that  report 
offers  no  just  ground,  surely,  for  such 
withdrawal.  The  subject  was  before 
Congress ;  it  was  for  Congress  to  decide 
upon  it,  with  all  the  light  shed  by  the 
report;  and  the  question  of  postpone 
ment,  having  been  made  in  both  houses, 
was  lost,  by  clear  majorities,  in  each. 
Under  such  circumstances,  it  would 
have  been  somewhat  singular,  to  say  the 
least,  if  the  bank  itself  had  withdrawn 
its  application.  It  is  indeed  known  to 
everybody,  that  neither  the  report  of 
the  committee,  nor  any  thing  contained 
in  that  report,  was  relied  on  by  the  op- 
posers  of  the  renewal.  If  it  has  been 
discovered  elsewhere,  that  that  report 
contained  matter  important  in  itself,  or 
which  should  have  led  to  further  inquiry, 
this  may  be  proof  of  superior  sagacity; 
for  certainly  no  such  thing  was  discerned 
by  either  house  of  Congress. 

But,  Sir,  do  we  not  now  see  that  it  was 
time,  and  high  time,  to  press  this  bill, 
and  to  send  it  to  the  President?  Does 
not  the  event  teach  us,  that  the  measure 
was  not  brought  forward  one  moment 
too  early?  The  time  had  come  when 
the  people  wished  to  know  the  decision 
of  the  administration  on  the  question  of 
the  bank?  Why  conceal  it,  or  postpone 
its  declaration?  Why,  as  in  regard  to 
the  tariff,  give  out  one  set  of  opinions  for 
the  North,  and  another  for  the  South? 

An  important  election  is  at  hand,  and 
the  renewal  of  the  bank  charter  is  a 
pending  object  of  great  interest,  and 
some  excitement.  Should  not  the  opin 
ions  of  men  high  in  office,  and  candi- 


324 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


dates  for  re-election,  be  known  on  this, 
as  on  other  important  public  questions? 
Certainly,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  are  not  yet 
mere  man-worshippers,  that  they  do  not 
choose  their  rulers  without  some  regard 
to  their  political  principles,  or  political 
opinions.  Were  they  to  do  this,  it  would 
be  to  subject  themselves  voluntarily  to 
the  evils  which  the  hereditary  transmis 
sion  of  power,  independent  of  all  personal 
qualifications,  inflicts  on  other  nations. 
They  will  judge  their  public  servants 
by  their  acts,  and  continue  or  withhold 
their  confidence,  as  they  shall  think  it 
merited,  or  as  they  shall  think  it  for 
feited.  In  every  point  of  view,  there 
fore,  the  moment  had  arrived,  when  it 
became  the  duty  of  Congress  to  come  to 
a  result,  in  regard  to  this  highly  impor 
tant  measure.  The  interests  of  the  gov 
ernment,  the  interests  of  the  people,  the 
clear  and  indisputable  voice  of  public 
opinion,  all  called  upon  Congress  to  act 
without  further  loss  of  time.  It  has 
acted,  and  its  act  has  been  negatived  by 
the  President;  and  this  result  of  the 
proceedings  here  places  the  question, 
with  all  its  connections  and  all  its  inci 
dents,  fully  before  the  people. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  constitutional 
question,  there  are  some  other  topics, 
treated  in  the  message,  which  ought  to 
be  noticed.  It  commences  by  an  in 
flamed  statement  of  what  it  calls  the 
"favor"  bestowed  upon  the  original 
bank  by  the  government,  or,  indeed,  as 
it  is  phrased,  the  "  monopoly  of  its  favor 
and  support";  and  through  the  whole 
message  all  possible  changes  are  rung  on 
the  "gratuity,"  the  "exclusive  privi 
leges,"  and  "monopoly,"  of  the  bank 
charter.  Now,  Sir,  the  truth  is,  that 
the  powers  conferred  on  the  bank  are 
such,  and  no  others,  as  are  usually  con 
ferred  on  similar  institutions.  They 
constitute  no  monopoly,  although  some 
of  them  are  of  necessity,  and  with  pro 
priety,  exclusive  privileges.  ' '  The  origi 
nal  act,"  says  the  message,  "operated 
as  a  gratuity  of  many  millions  to  the 
stockholders."  What  fair  foundation 
is  there  for  this  remark  ?  The  stock 
holders  received  their  charter,  not  gratu 


itously,  but  for  a  valuable  consideration 
in  money,  prescribed  by  Congress,  and 
actually  yaid.  At  some  times  the  stock 
has  been  above  par,  at  other  times  below 
par,  according  to  prudence  in  manage 
ment,  or  according  to  commercial  occur 
rences.  But  if,  by  a  judicious  adminis 
tration  of  its  affairs,  it  had  kept  its  stock 
always  above  par,  what  pretence  would 
there  be,  nevertheless,  for  saying  that 
such  augmentation  of  its  value  was  a 
"gratuity"  from  government?  The 
message  proceeds  to  declare,  that  the 
present  act  proppses  another  donation, 
another  gratuity,  to  the  same  men,  of  at 
least  seven  millions  more.  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  is  an  extraordinary  state 
ment,  and  an  extraordinary  style  of  argu 
ment,  for  such  a  subject  and  on  such  an 
occasion.  In  the  first  place,  the  facts 
are  all  assumed;  they  are  taken  for  true 
without  evidence.  There  are  no  proofs 
that  any  benefit  to  that  amount  will 
accrue  to  the  stockholders,  nor  any  ex 
perience  to  justify  the  expectation  of  it. 
It  rests  on  random  estimates,  or  mere 
conjecture.  But  suppose  the  continu 
ance  of  the  charter  should  prove  bene 
ficial  to  the  stockholders ;  do  they  not 
pay  for  it?  They  give  twice  as  much 
for  a  charter  of  fifteen  years,  as  was 
given  before  for  one  of  twenty.  And 
if  the  proposed  bonus,  or  premium,  be 
not,  in  the  President's  judgment,  large 
enough,  would  he,  nevertheless,  on  such 
a  mere  matter  of  opinion  as  that,  nega 
tive  the  whole  bill?  May  not  Congress 
be  trusted  to  decide  even  on  such  a  sub 
ject  as  the  amount  of  the  money  premium 
to  be  received  by  government  for  a  char 
ter  of  this  kind? 

But,  Sir,  there  is  a  larger  and  a  much 
more  just  view  of  this  subject.  The  bill 
was  not  passed  for  the  purpose  of  bene 
fiting  the  present  stockholders.  Their 
benefit,  if  any,  is  incidental  and  col 
lateral.  Nor  was  it  passed  on  any  idea 
that  they  had  a  right  to  a  renewed  char 
ter,  although  the  message  argues  against 
such  right,  as  if  it  had  been  somewhere 
set  up  and  asserted.  No  such  right 
has  been  asserted  by  anybody.  Con 
gress  passed  the  bill,  not  as  a  bounty  or 
a  favor  to  the  present  stockholders,  nor 


OF   THE    UNITED    STATES   BANK  BILL. 


325 


to  comply  with  any  demand  of  right  on 
their  part ;  but  to  promote  great  public 
interests,  for  great  public  objects.  Every 
bank  must  have  some  stockholders,  un 
less  it  be  such  a  bank  as  the  President 
has  recommended,  and  in  regard  to 
which  he  seems  not  likely  to  find  much 
concurrence  of  other  men's  opinions; 
and  if  the  stockholders,  whoever  they 
may  be,  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  bank 
prudently,  the  expectation  is  always,  of 
course,  that  they  will  make  it  profitable 
to  themselves,  as  well  as  useful  to  the 
public.  If  a  bank  charter  is  not  to  be 
granted,  because,  to  some  extent,  it 
may  be  profitable  to  the  stockholders, 
no  charter  can  be  granted.  The  objec 
tion  lies  against  all  banks. 

Sir,  the  object  aimed  at  by  such  insti 
tutions  is  to  connect  the  public  safety 
and  convenience  with  private  interests. 
It  has  been  found  by  experience,  that 
banks  are  safest  under  private  manage 
ment,  and  that  government  banks  are 
among  the  most  dangerous  of  all  inven 
tions.  Now,  Sir,  the  whole  drift  of  the 
message  is  to  reverse  the  settled  judg 
ment  of  all  the  civilized  world,  and  to 
set  up  government  banks,  independent 
of  private  interest  or  private  control. 
For  this  purpose  the  message  labors, 
even  beyond  the  measure  of  all  its  other 
labors,  to  create  jealousies  and  preju 
dices,  on  the  ground  of  the  alleged  bene 
fit  which  individuals  will  derive  from 
the  renewal  of  this  charter.  Much  less 
effort  is  made  to  show  that  government, 
or  the  public,  will  be  injured  by  the  bill, 
than  t4iat  individuals  will  profit  by  it. 
Following  up  the  impulses  of  the  same 
spirit,  the  message  goes  on  gravely  to 
allege,  that  the  act,  as  passed  by  Con 
gress,  proposes  to  make  a  present  of 
some  millions  of  dollars  to  foreigners, 
because  a  portion  of  the  stock  is  held 
by  foreigners.  Sir,  how  would  this  sort 
of  argument  apply  to  other  cases?  The 
President  has  shown  himself  not  only 
willing,  but  anxious,  to  pay  off  the  three 
per  cent  stock  of  the  United  States  at 
par,  notwithstanding  that  it  is  notorious 
that  foreigners  are  owners  of  the  greater 
part  of  it.  Why  should  he  not  call  that  a 
donation  to  foreigners  of  many  millions  ? 


I  will  not  dwell  particularly  on  this  part 
of  the  message.  Its  tone  and  its  argu 
ments  are  all  in  the  same  strain.  It 
speaks  of  the  certain  gain  of  the  present 
stockholders,  of  the  value  of  the  mo 
nopoly;  it  says  that  all  monopolies  are 
granted  at  the  expense  of  the  public; 
that  the  many  millions  which  this  bill 
bestows  on  the  stockholders  come  out  of 
the  earnings  of  the  people ;  that,  if  gov 
ernment  sells  monopolies,  it  ought  to  sell 
them  in  open  market;  that  it  is  an  er 
roneous  idea,  that  the  present  stock 
holders  have  a  prescriptive  right  either 
to  the  favor  or  the  bounty  of  govern 
ment;  that  the  stock  is  in  the  hands  of 
a  few,  and  that  the  whole  American  peo 
ple  are  excluded  from  competition  in  the 
purchase  of  the  monopoly.  To  all  this 
I  say,  again,  that  much  of  it  is  assump 
tion  without  proof;  much  of  it  is  an 
argument  against  that  which  nobody  has 
maintained  or  asserted ;  and  the  rest  of 
it  would  be  equally  strong  against  any 
charter,  at  any  time.  These  objections 
existed  in  their  full  strength,  whatever 
that  was,  against  the  first  bank.  They 
existed,  in  like  manner,  against  the 
present  bank  at  its  creation,  and  will 
ahvays  exist  against  all  banks.  Indeed, 
all  the  fault  found  with  the  bill  now 
before  us  is,  that  it  proposes  to  continue 
the  bank  substantially  as  it  now  exists. 
"  All  the  objectionable  principles  of  the 
existing  corporation,"  says  the  message, 
"and  most  of  its  odious  features,  are 
retained  without  alleviation  " ;  so  that 
the  message  is  aimed  against  the  bank, 
as  it  has  existed  from  the  first,  and 
against  any  and  all  others  resembling  it 
in  its  general  features. 

Allow  me,  now,  Sir,  to  take  notice  of 
an  argument  founded  on  the  practical 
operation  of  the  bank.  That  argument 
is  this.  Little  of  the  stock  of  the  bank 
is  held  in  the  West,  the  capital  being 
chiefly  owrned  by  citizens  of  the  Southern 
and  Eastern  States,  and  by  foreigners. 
But  the  Western  and  Southwestern 
States  owe  the  bank  a  heavy  debt,  so 
heavy  that  the  interest  amounts  to  a 
million  six  hundred  thousand  a  year. 
This  interest  is  carried  to  the  Eastern 
States,  or  to  Europe,  annually,  and  its 


326 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


payment  is  a  burden  on  the  people  of 
the  West,  and  a  drain  of  their  currency, 
which  no  country  can  bear  without  in 
convenience  and  distress.  The  true 
character  and  the  whole  value  of  this 
argument  are  manifest  by  the  mere  state 
ment  of  it.  The  people  of  the  West  are, 
from  their  situation,  necessarily  large 
borrowers.  They  need  money,  capital, 
and  they  borrow  it,  because  they  can 
derive  a  benefit  from  its  use,  much  be 
yond  the  interest  which  they  pay.  They 
borrow  at  six  per  cent  of  the  bank,  al 
though  the  value  of  money  with  them  is 
at  least  as  high  as  eight.  Nevertheless, 
although  they  borrow  at  this  low  rate  of 
interest,  and  although  they  use  all  they 
borrow  thus  profitably,  yet  they  cannot 
pay  the  interest  without  ' '  inconvenience 
and  distress";  and  then,  Sir,  follows 
the  logical  conclusion,  that,  although 
they  cannot  pay  even  the  interest  with 
out  inconvenience  and  distress,  yet  less 
than  four  years  is  ample  time  for  the 
bank  to  call  in  the  whole,  both  princi 
pal  and  interest,  without  causing  more 
than  a  light  pressure.  This  is  the  argu 
ment. 

Then  follows  another,  which  may  be 
thus  stated.  It  is  competent  to  the 
States  to  tax  the  property  of  their  citi 
zens  vested  in  the  stock  of  this  bank ; 
but  the  power  is  denied  of  taxing  the 
stock  of  foreigners ;  therefore  the  stock 
will  be  worth  ten  or  fifteen  per  cent  more 
to  foreigners  than  to  residents,  and  will 
of  course  inevitably  leave  the  country, 
and  make  the  American  people  debtors 
to  aliens  in  nearly  the  whole  amount 
due  the  bank,  and  send  across  the  At 
lantic  from  two  to  five  millions  of  specie 
every  year,  to  pay  the  bank  dividends. 

Mr.  President,  arguments  like  these 
might  be  more  readily  disposed  of,  were 
it  not  that  the  high  and  official  source 
from  which  they  proceed  imposes  the 
necessity  of  treating  them  with  respect. 
In  the  first  place,  it  may  safely  be  denied 
that  the  stock  of  the  bank  is  any  more 
valuable  to  foreigners  than  to  our  own 
citizens,  or  an  object  of  greater  desire 
to  them,  except  in  so  far  as  capital  may 
be  more  abundant  in  the  foreign  country, 
and  therefore  its  owners  more  in  want 


of  opportunity  of  investment.  The  for 
eign  stockholder  enjoys  no  exemption 
from  taxation.  He  is,  of  course,  taxed 
by  his  own  government  for  his  incomes, 
derived  from  this  as  well  as  other  prop 
erty;  and  this  is  a  full  answer  to  the 
whole  statement.  But  it  may  be  added, 
in  the  second  place,  that  it  is  not  the 
practice  of  civilized  states  to  tax  the 
property  of  foreigners  under  such  cir 
cumstances.  Do  we  tax,  or  did  we  ever 
tax,  the  foreign  holders  of  our  public 
debt?  Does  Pennsylvania,  New  York, 
or  Ohio  tax  the  foreign  holders  of  stock 
in  the  loans  contracted  by  either  of 
these  States?  Certainly  not.  Sir,  I 
must  confess  I  had  little  expected  to 
see,  on  such  an  occasion  as  the  present, 
a  labored  and  repeated  attempt  to  pro 
duce  an  impression  on  the  public  opin 
ion  unfavorable  to  the  bank,  from  the 
circumstance  that  foreigners  are  among 
its  stockholders.  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying,  that  I  deem  such  a  train  of  re 
mark  as  the  message  contains  on  this 
point,  coming  from  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  to  be  injurious  to  the 
credit  and  character  of  the  country 
abroad ;  because  it  manifests  a  jealousy, 
a  lurking  disposition  not  to  respect  the 
property,  of  foreigners  invited  hither  by 
our  own  laws.  And,  Sir,  what  is  its 
tendency  but  to  excite  this  jealousy,  and 
create  groundless  prejudices? 

From  the  commencement  of  the  gov 
ernment,  it  has  been  thought  desirable 
to  invite,  rather  than  to  repel,  the  in 
troduction  of  foreign  capital.  Our 
stocks  have  all  been  open  to  foreign 
subscriptions;  and  the  State  banks,  in 
like  manner,  are  free  to  foreign  owner 
ship.  Whatever  State  has  created  a 
debt  has  been  willing  that  foreigners 
should  become  purchasers,  and  desirous 
of  it.  How  long  is  it,  Sir,  since  Con 
gress  itself  passed  a  law  vesting  new 
powers  in  the  President  of  the  United 
States  over  the  cities  in  this  District, 
for  the  very  purpose  of  increasing  their 
credit  abroad,  the  better  to  enable  them 
to  borrow  money  to  pay  their  subscrip 
tions  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal?  It  is  easy  to  say  that  there  is 
danger  to  liberty,  danger  to  indepen- 


OF   THE    UNITED    STATES   BANK  BILL. 


327 


dence,  in  a  bank  open  to  foreign  stock 
holders,  because  it  is  easy  to  say  any 
thing.  But  neither  reason  nor  experi 
ence  proves  any  such  danger.  The  for 
eign  stockholder  cannot  be  a  director. 
He  has  no  voice  even  in  the  choice  of 
directors.  His  money  is  placed  entirely 
in  the  management  of  the  directors  ap 
pointed  by  the  President  and  Senate 
and  by  the  American  stockholders.  So 
far  as  there  is  dependence  or  influence 
either  way,  it  is  to  the  disadvantage  of 
the  foreign  stockholder.  He  has  parted 
with  the  control  over  his  own  property, 
instead  of  exercising  control  over  the 
property  or  over  the  actions  of  others. 
And,  Sir,  let  it  now  be  added,  in  further 
answer  to  this  class  of  objections,  that 
experience  has  abundantly  confuted 
them  all.  This  government  has  existed 
forty-three  years,  and  has  maintained, 
in  full  being  and  operation,  a  bank, 
such  as  is  now  proposed  to  be  renewed, 
for  thirty-six  years  out  of  the  forty- 
three.  .AVe  ^ave  never  for  a  moment 
had*  «,  bank  not  subject  to  every  one  of 
these  objections.  Always,  foreigners 
might  be  stockholders;  always,  foreign 
stock  hAsbggi).  exempt  from  State  tax 
ation,  assTmucn  as  at  present;  always, 
the  same  power  and  privileges;  always, 
all  that  which  is  now  called  a  "  mo 
nopoly,"  a  "gratuity,"  a  "present," 
have  oeen  possessed  by  the  bank.  And 
yet'-.there  has  been  found  no  danger  to 
liberto,  no  introduction  of  foreign  influ- 
ence^fffft^rfo  accumulation  of  irrespon 
sible  power  in  a  few  hands.  I  cannot 
but  hope,  therefore,  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  will  not  now  yield  up 
their  judgment  to  those  notions  which 
would  reverse  all  our  best  experience, 
and  persuade  us  to  discontinue  a  useful 
institution  from  the  influence  of  vague 
and  unfounded  declamation  against  its 
danger  to  the  public  liberties.  Our  lib 
erties,  indeed,  must  stand  upon  very 
frail  foundations,  if  the  government 
cannot,  without  endangering  them, 
avail  itself  of  those  common  facilities, 
in  the  collection  of  its  revenues  and  the 
management  of  its  finances,  which  all 
other  governments,  in  commercial  coun 
tries,  find  useful  and  necessary. 


In  order  to  justify  its  alarm  for  the 
security  of  our  independence,  the  mes 
sage  supposes  a  case.  It  supposes  that 
the  bank  should  pass  principally  into 
the  hands  of  the  subjects  of  a  foreign 
country,  and  that  we  should  be  involved 
in  war  with  that  country,  and  then  it 
exclaims,  "  What  would  be  our  condi 
tion?  "  Why,  Sir,  it  is  plain  that  all 
the  advantages  would  be  on  our  side. 
The  bank  would  still  be  our  institution, 
subject  to  our  own  laws,  and  all  its 
directors  elected  by  ourselves;  and  our 
means  would  be  enhanced,  not  by  the 
confiscation  and  plunder,  but  by  the 
proper  use,  of  the  foreign  capital  in  our 
hands.  And,  Sir,  it  is  singular  enough 
that  this  very  state  of  war,  from  which 
this  argument  against  a  bank  is  drawn, 
is  the  very  thing  which,  more  than  all 
others,  convinced  the  country  and  the 
government  of  the  necessity  of  a  na 
tional  bank.  So  much  was  the  want  of 
such  an  institution  felt  in  the  late  war, 
that  the  subject  engaged  the  attention 
of  Congress,  constantly,  from  the  decla 
ration  of  that  war  down  to  the  time 
when  the  existing  bank  was  actually 
established;  so  that  in  this  respect,  as 
well  as  in  others,  the  argument  of  the 
message  is  directly  opposed  to  the  whole 
experience  of  the  government,  and  to 
the  general  and  long-settled  convictions 
of  the  country. 

I  now  proceed,  Sir,  to  a  few  remarks 
upon  the  President's  constitutional  ob 
jections  to  the  bank;  and  I  cannot  for 
bear  to  say,  in  regard  to  them,  that  he 
appears  to  me  to  have  assumed  very  ex 
traordinary  grounds  of  reasoning.  He 
denies  that  the  constitutionality  of  the 
bank  is  a  settled  question.  If  it  be  not, 
will  it  ever  become  so,  or  what  disputed 
question  ever  can  be  settled?  I  have 
already  observed,  that  for  thirty-six 
years  out  of  the  forty-three  during  which 
the  government  has  been  in  being,  a 
bank  has  existed,  such  as  is  now  pro 
posed  to  be  continued. 

As  early  as  1791,  after  great  delibera 
tion,  the  first  bank  charter  was  passed 
by  Congress,  and  approved  by  President 
Washington.  It  established  an  institu 
tion,  resembling,  in  all  things  now  ob- 


328 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


jected  to,  the  present  bank.  That  bank, 
like  this,  could  take  lands  in  payment  of 
its  debts;  that  charter,  like  the  present, 
gave  the  States  no  power  of  taxation ;  it 
allowed  foreigners  to  hold  stock;  it  re 
strained  Congress  from  creating  other 
banks.  Jt  gave  also  exclusive  privi 
leges,  and  in  all  particulars  it  was,  ac 
cording  to  the  doctrine  of  the  message, 
as  objectionable  as  that  now  existing. 
That  bank  continued  twenty  years.  In 
1816,  the  present  institution  was  estab 
lished,  and  lias  been  ever  since  in  full 
operation.  Now,  Sir,  the  question  of 
the  power  of  Congress  to  create  such 
institutions  has  been  contested  in  every 
manner  known  to  our  Constitution  and 
laws.  The  forms  of  the  government 
furnish  no  new  mode  in  which  to  try 
this  question.  It  has  been  discussed 
over  and  over  again,  in  Congress;  it  has 
been  argued  and  solemnly  adjudged  in 
the  Supreme  Court;  every  President, 
except  the  present,  has  considered  it  a 
settled  question ;  many  of  the  State  legis 
latures  have  instructed  their  Senators 
to  vote  for  the  bank;  the  tribunals  of 
the  States,  in  every  instance,  have  sup 
ported  its  constitutionality;  and,  beyond 
all  doubt  and  dispute,  the  general  pub 
lic  opinion  of  the  country  has  at  all 
times  given,  and  does  now  give,  its  full 
sanction  and  approbation  to  the  exercise 
of  this  power,  as  being  a  constitutional 
power.  There  has  been  no  opinion 
questioning  the  power  expressed  or  inti 
mated,  at  any  time,  by  either  house  of 
Congress,  by  any  President,  or  by  any 
respectable  judicial  tribunal.  Now,  Sir, 
if  this  practice  of  near  forty  years,  if 
these  repeated  exercises  of  the  power, 
if  this  solemn  adjudication  of  the  Su 
preme  Court,  with  the  concurrence  and 
approbation  of  public  opinion,  do  not 
settle  the.  question,  how  is  any  question 
ever  to  be  settled,  about  which  any  one 
may  choose  to  raise  a  doubt? 

The  argument  of  the  message  upon 
the  Congressional  precedents  is  either  a 
bold  and  gross  fallacy,  or  else  it  is  an 
assertion  without  proofs,  and  against 
known  facts.  The  message  admits, 
that,  in  1791.  Congress  decided  in  favor 
of  a  bank;  but  it  adds,  that  another 


Congress,  in  1811,  decided  against  it. 
Now,  if  it  be  meant  that,  in  1811,  Con 
gress  decided  against  the  bank  on  con 
stitutional  ground,  then  the  assertion 
is  wholly  incorrect,  and  against  noto 
rious  fact.  It  is  perfectly  well  known, 
that  many  members,  in  both  houses, 
voted  against  the  bank  in  1811,  who 
.had  no  doubt  at  all  of  the  constitutional 
power  of  Congress.  They  were  entirely 
governed  by-  other  reasons  given  at  the 
time.  I  appeal,  Sir,  to  the  honorable 
member  from  Maryland,  who  was  then  a 
member  of  the  Senate,  and  voted  against 
the  bank,  whether  he,  and  others  who 
were  on  the  same  side,  did  not  give 
those  votes  on  other  well-known  grounds, 
and  not  at  all  on  constitutional  ground? 

General  Smith  here  rose,  and  said,  that 
he  voted  against  the  bank  in  1811,  but  not 
at  all  on  constitutional  grounds,  and  had 
no  doubt  such  was  the  case  with  other 
members. 

We  all  know,  Sir,  the  fact  to  be  as 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  stat 
ed  it.  Every  man  who  recollects,  or 
who  has  read,  the  political  occurrences 
of  that  day,  knows  it.  Therefore,  if  the 
message  intends  to  say,  that  in  1811 
Congress  denied  the  existence  of  any 
such  constitutional  power,  the  declara 
tion  is  unwarranted,  and  altogether  at 
variance  with  the  facts.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  only  intends  to  say,  that 
Congress  decided  against  the  proposition 
then  before  it  on  some  other  grounds, 
then  it  alleges  that  which  is  nothing 
at  all  to  the  purpose.  The  argument, 
then,  either  assumes  for  truth  that 
which  is  not  true,  or  else  the  whole 
statement  is  immaterial  and  futile. 

But  whatever  value  others  may  attach 
to  this  argument,  the  message  thinks  so 
highly  of  it,  that  it  proceeds  to  repeat  it. 
"  One  Congress,"  it  says,  "  in  1815,  de 
cided  against  a  bank,  another,  in  1816, 
decided  in  its  favor.  There  is  nothing 
in  precedent,  therefore,  which,  if  its  au 
thority  were  admitted,  ought  to  weigh  in 
favor  of  the  act  before  me."  Now,  Sir, 
since  it  is  known  to  the  whole  country, 
one  cannot  but  wonder  how  it  should 
remain  unknown  to  the  President,  that 


OF   THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  BILL. 


829 


Congress  did  not  decide  against  a  bank 
in  1815.  On  the  contrary,  that  very 
Congress  passed  a  bill  for  erecting  a 
bank,  by  very  large  majorities.  In  one 
form,  it  is  true,  the  bill  failed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives ;  but  the  vote 
was  reconsidered,  the  bill  recommitted, 
and  finally  passed  by  a  vote  of  one  hun 
dred  and  twenty  to  thirty-nine.  There 
is,  therefore,  not  only  no  solid  ground, 
but  not  even  any  plausible  pretence,  for 
the  assertion,  that  Congress  in  1815  de 
cided  against  the  bank.  That  very  Con 
gress  passed  a  bill  to  create  a  bank,  and 
its  decision,  therefore,  is  precisely  the 
other  way,  and  is  a  direct  practical  prece 
dent  in  favor  of  the  constitutional  power. 
What  are  we  to  think  of  -a  constitutional 
argument  which  deals  in  this  way  with 
historical  facts?  When  the  message  de 
clares,  as  it  does  declare,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  precedent  which  ought  to 
weigh  in  favor  of  the  power,  it  sets  at 
naught  repeated  acts  of  Congress  affirm 
ing  the  power,  and  it  also  states  other 
acts,  which  were  in  fact,  and  which  are 
well  known  to  have  been,  directly  the 
reverse  of  what  the  message  represents 
them.  There  is  not,  Sir,  the  slightest 
reason  to  think  that  any  Senate  or  any 
House  of  Representatives,  ever  assem 
bled  under  the  Constitution,  contained 
a  majority  that  doubted  the  constitu 
tional  existence  of  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  establish  a  bank.  Whenever 
the  question  has  arisen,  and  has  been 
decided,  it  has  always  been  decided  one 
way.  The  legislative  precedents  all  as 
sert  and  maintain  the  power ;  and  these 
legislative  precedents  have  been  the  law 
of  the  land  for  almost  forty  years.  They 
settle  the  construction  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  sanction  the  exercise  of  the 
power  in  question,  so  far  as  these  effects 
can  ever  be  produced  by  any  legislative 
precedents  whatever. 

But  the  President  does  not  admit  the 
authority  of  precedent.  Sir,  I  have  al 
ways  found,  that  those  who  habitually 
deny  most  vehemently  the  general  force 
of  precedent,  and  assert  most  strongly 
the  supremacy  of  private  opinion,  are 
yet,  of  all  men,  most  tenacious  of  that 
very  authority  of  precedent,  whenever  it 


happens  to  be  in  their  favor.  I  beg  leave 
to  ask,  Sir,  upon  what  ground,  except  that 
of  precedent,  and  precedent  alone,  the 
President's  friends  have  placed  his  power 
of  removal  from  office.  No  such  power 
is  given  by  the  Constitution,  in  terms, 
nor  anywhere  intimated,  throughout  the 
whole  of  it;  no  paragraph  or  clause  of 
that  instrument  recognizes  such  a  power. 
To  say  the  least,  it  is  as  questionable, 
and  has  been  as  often  questioned,  as  the 
power  of  Congress  to  create  a  bank; 
and,  enlightened  by  what  has  passed 
under  our  own  observation,  we  now  see 
that  it  is  of  all  powers  the  most  capable 
of  flagrant  abuse.  Now,  Sir,  I  ask 
again,  What  becomes  of  this  power,  if 
the  authority  of  precedent  be  taken 
away?  It  has  all  along  been  denied  to 
exist;  it  is  nowhere  found  in  the  Con 
stitution;  and  its  recent  exercise,  or,  to 
call  things  by  their  right  names,  its  re 
cent  abuse,  has,  more  than  any  other 
single  cause,  rendered  good  men  either 
cool  in  their  affections  toward  the  gov 
ernment  of  their  country,  or  doubtful  of 
its  long  continuance.  Yet  there  is  prece 
dent  in  favor  of  this  power,  and  the  Pres 
ident  exercises  it.  We  knowT,  Sir,  that, 
without  the  aid  of  that  precedent,  his 
acts  could  never  have  received  the  sanc 
tion  of  this  body,  even  at  a  time  when 
his  voice  was  somewhat  more  potential 
here  than  it  now  is,  or,  as  I  trust,  ever 
again  will  be.  Does  the  President,  then, 
reject  the  authority  of  all  precedent  ex 
cept  what  it  is  suitable  to  his  own  pur 
pose  to  use  ?  And  does  he  use,  without 
stint  or  measure,  all  precedents  which 
may  augment  his  own  power,  or  gratify 
his  own  wishes  ? 

But  if  the  President  thinks  lightly  of 
the  authority  of  Congress  in  construing 
the  Constitution,  he  thinks  still  more 
lightly  of  the  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  He  asserts  a  right  of  individual 
judgment  on  constitutional  questions, 
which  is  totally  inconsistent  with  any 
proper  administration  of  the  govern 
ment,  or  any  regular  execution  of  the 
laws.  Social  disorder,  entire  uncertainty 
in  regard  to  individual  rights  and  indi 
vidual  duties,  the  cessation  of  legal  au 
thority,  confusion,  the  dissolution  of 


330 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


free  government,  —  all  these  are  the  in 
evitable  consequences  of  the  principles 
adopted  by  the  message,  whenever  they 
shall  be  carried  to  their  full  extent. 
Hitherto  it  has  been  thought  that  the 
final  decision  of  constitutional  questions 
belonged  to  the  supreme  judicial  tribu 
nal.  The  very  nature  of  free  govern 
ment,  it  has  been  supposed,  enjoins  this; 
and  our  Constitution,  moreover,  has  been 
understood  so  to  provide,  clearly  and  ex- 
presslv-  It  is  true,  that  each  branch  of 
the  legislature  has  an  undoubted  right, 
in  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  to  con 
sider  the  constitutionality  of  a  law  pro 
posed  to  be  passed.  This  is  naturally  a 
part  of  its  duty ;  and  neither  branch  can 
be  compelled  to  pass  any  law,  or  do  any 
other  act,  which  it  deems  to  be  beyond 
the  reach  of  its  constitutional  power. 
The  President  has  the  same  right,  when 
a  bill  is  presented  for  his  approval ;  for 
he  is,  doubtless,  bound  to  consider,  in 
all  cases,  whether  such  bill  be  compat 
ible  with  the  Constitution,  and  whether 
he  can  approve  it  consistently  with  his 
oath  of  office.  But  when  a  law  has  been 
passed  by  Congress,  and  approved  by  the 
President,  it  is  now  no  longer  in  the 
power,  either  of  the  same  President,  or 
his  successors,  to  say  whether  the  law  is 
constitutional  or  not.  He  is  not  at  lib 
erty  to  disregard  it ;  he  is  not  at  liberty 
to  feel  or  to  affect  "  constitutional  scru 
ples,"  and  to  sit  in  judgment  himself  on 
the  validity  of  a  statute  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  to  nullify  it,  if  he  so  chooses. 
After  a  law  has  passed  through  all  the 
requisite  forms;  after  it  has  received 
the  requisite  legislative  sanction  and  the 
executive  approval,  the  question  of  its 
constitutionality  then  becomes  a  judicial 
question,  and  a  judicial  question  alone. 
In  the  courts  that  question  may  be 
raised,  argued,  and  adjudged;  it  can  be 
adjudged  nowhere  else. 

The  President  is  as  much  bound  by 
the  law  as  any  private  citizen,  and  can 
no  more  contest  its  validity  than  any 
private  citizen.  He  may  refuse  to  obey 
the  law,  and  so  may  a  private  citizen; 
but  both  do  it  at  their  own  peril,  and 
neither  of  them  can  settle  the  question 
of  its  validity.  The  President  may  say 


a  law  is  unconstitutional,  but  he  is  not 
the  judge.  Who  is  to  decide  that  ques 
tion?  ^The  judiciary  alone  possesses 
this  unquestionable  and  hitherto  un 
questioned  right.  The  judiciary  is  the 
constitutional  tribunal  of  appeal  for  the 
citizens,  against  both  Congress  and  the 
executive,  in  regard  to  the  constitution 
ality  of  laws.  It  has  this  jurisdiction 
expressly  conferred  upon  it,  and  when 
it  has  decided  the  question,  its  judgment 
must,  from  the  very  nature  of  all  judg 
ments  that  are  final,  and  from  which 
there  is  no  appeal,  be  conclusive. 
Hitherto,  this  opinion,  and  a  corre 
spondent  practice,  have  prevailed,  in 
America,  with  all  wise  and  considerate 
men.  If  it  were  otherwise,  there  would 
be  no  government  of  laws;  but  we 
should  all  live  under  the  government, 
the  rule,  the  caprices,  of  individuals. 
If  we  depart  from  the  observance  of 
these  salutary  principles,  the  executive 
power  becomes  at  once  purely  despotic; 
for  the  President,  if  the  principle  and 
the  reasoning  of  the  message  be  sound, 
may  either  execute  or  not  execute  the 
laws  of  the  land,  according  to  his  sover 
eign  pleasure.  He  may  refuse  to  put 
into  execution  one  law,  pronounced 
valid  by  all  branches  of  the  government, 
and  yet  execute  another,  which  may 
have  been  by  constitutional  authority 
pronounced  void. 

On  the  argument  of  the  message,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  holds, 
under  a  new  pretence  and  a  new  name, 
a  dispensing  power  over  the  laws  as  abso 
lute  as  was  claimed  by  James  the  Second 
of  England,  a  month  before  he  was  com 
pelled  to  fly  the  kingdom.  That  which 
is  now  claimed  by  the  President  is  in 
truth  nothing  less,  and  nothing  else, 
than  the  old  dispensing  power  asserted 
by  the  kings  of  England  in  the  worst  of 
times;  the  very  climax,  indeed,  of  all 
the  preposterous  pretensions  of  the  Tu 
dor  and  the  Stuart  races.  According 
to  the  doctrines  put  forth  by  the  Presi 
dent,  although  Congress  may  have 
passed  a  law,  and  although  the  Supreme 
Court  may  have  pronounced  it  constitu 
tional,  yet  it  is,  nevertheless,  no  law  at 
all,  if  he,  in  his  good  pleasure,  sees  fit 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL. 


331 


to  deny  it  effect ;  in  other  words,  to  re 
peal  and  annul  it.  Sir,  no  President 
and  no  public  man  ever  before  advanced 
such  doctrines  in  the  face  of  the  nation. 
There  never  before  was  a  moment  in 
which  any  President  would  have  been 
tolerated  in  asserting  such  a  claim  to 
despotic  power.  After  Congress  has 
passed  the  law,  and  after  the  Supreme 
Court  has  pronounced  its  judgment  on 
the  very  point  in  controversy,  the  Presi 
dent  has  set  up  his  own  private  judg 
ment  against  its  constitutional  interpre 
tation.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  Sir, 
that  it  is  the  present  law,  it  is  the  act  of 
1810,  it  is  the  present  charter  of  the 
bank,  which  the  President  pronounces 
to  be  unconstitutional.  It  is  no  bank 
to  be  created,  it  is  no  law  proposed  to  be 
passed,  which  he  denounces;  it  is  the 
law  now  existing,  passed  by  Congress, 
approved  by  President  Madison,  and 
sanctioned  by  a  solemn  judgment  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  which  he  now  declares 
unconstitutional,  and  which,  of  course, 
so  far  as  it  may  depend  on  him,  cannot 
be  executed.  If  these  opinions  of  the 
President  be  maintained,  there  is  an 
end  of  all  law  and  all  judicial  authority. 
Statutes  are  but  recommendations,  judg 
ments  no  more  than  opinions.  Both 
are  equally  destitute  of  binding  force. 
Such  a  universal  power  as  is  now  claimed 
for  him,  a  power  of  judging  over  the 
laws  and  over  the  decisions  of  the  judi 
ciary,  is  nothing  else  but  pure  despotism. 
If  conceded  to  him,  it  makes  him  at 
once  what  Louis  the  Fourteenth  pro 
claimed  himself  to  be  when  he  said,  "  I 
am  the  State." 

The  Supreme  Court  has  unanimously 
declared  and  adjudged  that  the  existing 
bank  is  created  by  a  constitutional  law 
of  Congress.  As  has  been  before  ob 
served,  this  bank,  so  far  as  the  present 
question  is  concerned,  is-  like  that  which 
was  established  in  1791  by  Washington, 
and  sanctioned  by  the  great  men  of  that 
day.  In  every  form,  therefore,  in  which 
the  question  can  be  raised,  it  has  been 
raised  and  has  been  settled.  Every  pro 
cess  and  every  mode  of  trial  known  to 
the  Constitution  and  laws  have  been  ex 
hausted,  and  always  and  without  excep 


tion  the  decision  has  been  in  favor  of  the 
validity  of  the  law.  But  all  this  practice, 
all  this  precedent,  all  this  public  approba 
tion,  all  this  solemn  adjudication  directly 
on  the  point,  is  to  be  disregarded  and  re 
jected,  and  the  constitutional  power  flatly 
denied.  And,  Sir,  if  we  are  startled  at 
this  conclusion,  our  surprise  will  not  be 
lessened  when  we  examine  the  argument 
by  which  it  is  maintained. 

By  the  Constitution,  Congress  is  au 
thorized  to  pass  all  laws  "  necessary  and 
proper  "  for  carrying  its  own  legislative 
powers  into  effect.  Congress  has  deemed 
a  bank  to  be  "  necessary  and  proper  "  for 
these  purposes,  and  it  has  therefore  es 
tablished  a  bank.  But  although  the 
law  has  been  passed,  and  the  bank  es 
tablished,  and  the  constitutional  validity 
of  its  charter  solemnly  adjudged,  yet  the 
President  pronounces  it  unconstitutional, 
because  some  of  the  powers  bestowed  on 
the  bank  are,  in  his  opinion,  not  neces 
sary  or  proper.  It  would  appear  that 
powers  which  in  1791  and  in  1816,  in 
the  time  of  Washington  and  in  the  time 
of  Madison,  were  deemed  "necessary 
and  proper,"  are  no  longer  to  be  so  re 
garded,  and  therefore  the  bank  is  un 
constitutional.  It  has  really  corne  to 
this,  that  the  constitutionality  of  a  bank 
is  to  depend  upon  the  opinion  which 
one  particular  man  may  form  of  the 
utility  or  necessity  of  some  of  the  clauses 
in  its  charter !  If  that  individual 
chooses  to  think  that  a  particular  power 
contained  in  the  charter  is  not  necessary 
to  the  proper  constitution  of  the  bank, 
then  the  act  is  unconstitutional ! 

Hitherto  it  has  always  been  supposed 
that  the  question  was  of  a  very  different 
nature.  It  has  been  thought  that  the 
policy  of  granting  a  particular  charter 
may  be  materially  dependent  on  the 
structure  and  organization  and  powers 
of  the  proposed  institution.  But  its 
general  constitutionality  has  never  be 
fore  been  understood  to  turn  on  such 
points.  This  would  be  making  its  con 
stitutionality  depend  on  subordinate 
questions;  on  questions  of  expediency 
and  questions  of  detail;  upon  that 
which  one  man  may  think  necessary, 
and  another  may  not.  If  the  constitu- 


832 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


tiorial  question  were  made  to  hinge  on 
matters  of  this  kind,  how  could  it  ever 
be  decided  ?  All  would  depend  on  con 
jecture;  on  the  complexional  feeling,  on 
the  prejudices,  on  the  passions,  of  indi 
viduals;  on  more  or  less  practical  skill 
or  correct  judgment  in  regard  to  bank 
ing  operations  among  those  who  should 
be  the  judges  ;  on  the  impulse  of  mo 
mentary  interests,  party  objects,  or  per 
sonal  purposes.  Put  the  question  in 
this  manner  to  a  court  of  seven  judges, 
to  decide  whether  a  particular  bank  was 
constitutional,  and  it  might  be  doubtful 
whether  they  could  come  to  any  result, 
as  they  might  well  hold  very  various 
opinions  on  the  practical  utility  of  many 
clauses  of  the  charter. 

The  question  in  that  case  would  be, 
not  whether  the  bank,  in  its  general 
frame,  character,  and  objects,  was  a 
proper  instrument  to  carry  into  effect 
the  powers  of  the  government,  but 
whether  the  particular  powers,  direct  or 
incidental,  conferred  on  a  particular 
bank,  were  better  calculated  than  all 
others  to  give  success  to  its  operations. 
For  if  not,  then  the  charter,  according 
to  this  sort  of  reasoning,  would  be  un 
warranted  by  the  Constitution.  This 
mode  of  construing  the  Constitution  is 
certainly  a  novel  discovery.  Its  merits 
belong  entirely  to  the  President  and  his 
advisers.  According  to  this  rule  of  in 
terpretation,  if  the  President  should  be 
of  opinion,  that  the  capital  of  the  bank 
was  larger,  by  a  thousand  dollars,  than 
it  ought  to  be;  or  that  the  time  for  the 
continuance  of  the  charter  was  a  year 
too  long;  or  that  it  was  unnecessary  to 
require  it,  under  penalty,  to  pay  specie; 
or  needless  to  provide  for  punishing,  as 
forgery,  the  counterfeiting  of  its  bills, — 
either  of  these  reasons  would  be  suffi 
cient  to  render  the  charter,  in  his  opin 
ion,  unconstitutional,  invalid,  and  nuga 
tory.  This  is  a  legitimate  conclusion 
from  the  argument.  Such  a  view  of  the 
subject  has  certainly  never  before  been 
taken.  This  train  of  reasoning  has  hith 
erto  not  been  heard  within  the  halls 
of  Congress,  nor  has  any  one  ventured 
upon  it  before  the  tribunals  of  justice. 
The  first  exhibition,  its  first  appearance, 


as  an  argument,  is  in  a  message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States. 

According  to  that  mode  of  constru 
ing  the  Constitution  which  was  adopted 
by  Congress  in  1791,  and  approved  by 
Washington,  and  which  has  been  sanc 
tioned  by  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  affirmed  by  the  practice  of 
nearly  forty  years,  the  question  upon 
the  constitutionality  of  the  bank  in 
volves  twc?  inquiries.  First,  whether  a 
bank,  in  its  general  character,  and  with 
regard  to  the  general  objects  with  which 
banks  are  usually  connected,  be,  in  it 
self,  a  fit  means,  a  suitable  instrument, 
to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  granted 
to  the  government.  If  it  be  so,  then 
the  second,  and  the  only  other  question 
is,  whether  the  powers  given  in  a  par 
ticular  charter  are  appropriate  for  a 
bank.  If  they  are  powers  which  are 
appropriate  for  a  bank,  powers  which 
Congress  may  fairly  consider  to  be  use 
ful  to  the  bank  or  the  country,  then 
Congress  may  confer  these  powers;  be 
cause  the  discretion  to  be  exercised  in 
framing  the  constitution  of  the  bank 
belongs  to  Congress.  One  man  may 
think  the  granted  powers  not  indispen 
sable  to  the  particular  bank;  another 
may  suppose  them  injudicious,  or  inju 
rious;  a  third  may  imagine  that  other 
powers,  if  granted  in  their  stead,  would 
be  more  beneficial;  but  all  these  are 
matters  of  expediency,  about  which 
men  may  differ;  and  the  power  of  de 
ciding  upon  them  belongs  to  Congress. 

I  again  repeat,  Sir,  that  if,  for  reasons 
of  this  kind,  the  President  sees  fit  to 
negative  a  bill,  on  the  ground  of  its 
being  inexpedient  or  impolitic,  he  has 
a  right  to  do  so.  But  remember,  Sir, 
that  we  are  now  on  the  constitutional 
question ;  remember  that  the  argument 
of  the  President  is,  that,  because  powers 
were  given  to  the  bank  by  the  charter 
of  1816  which  he  thinks  unnecessary, 
that  charter  is  unconstitutional.  Now, 
Sir,  it  will  hardly  be  denied,  or  rather 
it  was  not  denied  or  doubted  before  this 
message  came  to  us,  that,  if  there  was 
to  be  a  bank,  the  powers  and  duties  of 
that  bank  must  be  prescribed  in  the  law 
creating  it.  Nobody  but  Congress,  it 


OF   THE   UNITED    STATES   BANK  BILL. 


333 


has  been  thought,  could  grant  these 
powers  and  privileges,  or  prescribe  their 
limitations.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
message  pretty  plainly  intimates,  that 
the  President  should  have  been  first 
consulted,  and  that  he  should  have  had 
the  framing  of  the  bill ;  but  we  are  not 
yet  accustomed  to  that  order  of  things 
in  enacting  laws,  nor  do  I  know  a  par 
allel  to  this  claim,  thus  now  brought 
forward,  except  that,  in  some  peculiar 
cases  in  England,  highly  affecting  the 
royal  prerogative,  the  assent  of  the  mon 
arch  is  necessary  before  either  the  House 
of  Peers,  or  his  Majesty's  faithful  Com 
mons,  are  permitted  to  act  upon  the 
subject,  or  to  entertain  its  consideration. 
But  supposing,  Sir,  that  our  accustomed 
forms  and  our  republican  principles  are 
still  to  be  followed,  and  that  a  law  cre 
ating  a  bank  is,  like  all  other  laws,  to 
originate  with  Congress,  and  that  the 
President  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  till 
it  is  presented  for  his  approval,  then  it 
is  clear  that  the  powers  and  duties  of  a 
proposed  bank,  and  all  the  terms  and 
conditions  annexed  to  it,  must,  in  the 
first  place,  be  settled  by  Congress. 

This  power,  if  constitutional  at  all, 
is  only  constitutional  in  the  hands  of 
Congress.  Anywhere  else,  its  exercise 
would  be  plain  usurpation.  If,  then, 
the  authority  to  decide  what  powers 
ought  to  be  granted  to  a  bank  belong  to 
Congress,  and  Congress  shall  have  exer 
cised  that  power,  it  would  seem  little 
better  than  absurd  to  say,  that  its  act, 
nevertheless,  would  be  unconstitutional 
and  invalid,  if,  in  the  opinion  of  a 
third  party,  it  had  misjudged,  on  a 
question  of  expediency,  in  the  arrange 
ment  of  details.  According  to  such  a 
mode  of  reasoning,  a  mistake  in  the 
exercise  of  jurisdiction  takes  away  the 
jurisdiction.  If  Congress  decide  right, 
its  decision  may  stand;  if  it  decide 
wrong,  its  decision  is  nugatory;  and 
whether  its  decision  be  right  or  wrong, 
another  is  to  judge,  although  the  original 
power  of  making  the  decision  must  be 
allowed  to  be  exclusively  in  Congress. 
This  is  the  end  to  which  the  argument 
of  the  message  will  conduct  its  fol 
lowers. 


Sir,  in  considering  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  invest  the  bank  with  the 
particular  powers  granted  to  it,  the  in 
quiry  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  how  appro 
priate  these  powers  are,  but  whether 
they  be  at  all  appropriate ;  whether  they 
come  within  the  range  of  a  just  and 
honest  discretion  ;  whether  Congress 
may  fairly  esteem  them  to  be  necessary. 
The  question  is  not,  Are  they  the  fittest 
means,  the  best  means?  or  whether  the 
bank  might  not  be  established  without 
them;  but  the  question  is,  Are  they 
such  as  Congress,  bona  fide,  may  have 
regarded  as  appropriate  to  the  end?  If 
any  other  rule  were  to  be  adopted,  noth 
ing  could  ever  be  settled.  A  law  would 
be  constitutional  to-day  and  unconstitu 
tional  to-morrow.  Its  constitutionality 
would  altogether  depend  upon  individual 
opinion  on  a  matter  of  mere  expediency. 
Indeed,  such  a  case  as  that  is  now  actu 
ally  betore  us.  Mr.  Madison  deemed 
the  powers  given  to  the  bank,  in  its 
present  charter,  proper  and  necessary. 
He  held  the  bank,  therefore,  to  be  con 
stitutional.  But  the  present  President, 
not  acknowledging  that  the  power  of 
deciding  on  these  points  rests  with  Con 
gress,  nor  with  Congress  and  the  then 
President,  but  setting  up  his  own  opin 
ion  as  the  standard,  declares  the  law 
now  in  being  unconstitutional,  because 
the  powers  granted  by  it  are,  in  his  esti 
mation,  not  necessary  and  proper.  I 
pray  to  be  informed,  Sir,  whether,  upon 
similar  grounds  of  reasoning,  the  Presi 
dent's  own  scheme  for  a  bank,  if  Con 
gress  should  do  so  unlikely  a  thing  as  to 
adopt  it,  would  not  become  unconstitu 
tional  also,  if  it  should  so  happen  that 
his  successor  should  hold  his  bank  in  as 
light  esteem  as  he  holds  those  established 
under  the  auspices  of  Washington  and 
Madison  ? 

If  the  reasoning  of  the  message  be 
well  founded,  it  is  clear  that  the  charter 
of  the  existing  bank  is  not  a  law.  The 
bank  has  no  legal  existence;  it  is  not 
responsible  to  government;  it  has  no 
authority  to  act;  it  is  incapable  of  be 
ing  an  agent;  the  President  may  treat 
it  as  a  nullity  to-morrow,  withdraw  from 
it  all  the  public  deposits,  and  set  afloat 


334 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


all  the  existing  national  arrangements 
of  revenue  and  finance.  It  is  enough  to 
state  these  monstrous  consequences,  to 
show  that  the  doctrine,  principles,  and 
pretensions  of  the  message  are  entirely 
inconsistent  with  a  government  of  laws. 
If  that  which  Congress  has  enacted,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  has  sanctioned,  be 
not  the  law  of  the  land,  then  the  reign 
of  law  has  ceased,  and  the  reign  of 
individual  opinion  has  already  begun. 

The  President,  in  his  commentary  on 
the  details  of  the  existing  bank  charter, 
undertakes  to  prove  that  one  provision, 
and  another  provision,  is  not  necessary 
and  proper;  because,  as  he  thinks,  the 
same  objects  proposed  to  be  accom 
plished  by  them  might  have  been  better 
attained  in  another  mode;  and  there 
fore  such  provisions  are  not  necessary, 
and  so  not  warranted  by  the  Consti 
tution.  Does  not  this  show,  that,  ac 
cording  to  his  own  mode  of  reasoning, 
his  own  scheme  would  not  be  constitu 
tional,  since  another  scheme,  which 
probably  most  people  would  think  a 
better  one,  might  be  substituted  for  it? 
Perhaps,  in  any  bank  charter,  there  may 
be  no  provisions  which  may  be  justly 
regarded  as  absolutely  indispensable; 
since  it  is  probable  that  for  any  of  them 
some  others  might  be  substituted.  No 
bank,  therefore,  ever  could  be  estab 
lished;  because  there  never  has  been, 
and  never  could  be,  any  charter,  of 
which  every  provision  should  appear 
to  be  indispensable,  or  necessary  and 
proper,  in  the  judgment  of  every  indi 
vidual.  To  admit,  therefore,  that  there 
may  be  a  constitutional  bank,  and  yet 
to  contend  for  such  a  mode  of  judging 
of  its  provisions  and  details  as  the 
message  adopts,  involves  an  absurdity. 
Any  charter  which  may  be  framed  may 
be  taken  up,  and  each  power  conferred 
by  it  successively  denied,  on  the  ground, 
that,  in  regard  to  each,  either  no  such 
power  is  "necessary  or  proper"  in  a 
bank,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing  in 
effect,  some  other  power  might  be  sub 
stituted  for  it,  and  supply  its  place. 
That  can  never  be  necessary,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  message  understands 
that  term,  which  may  be  dispensed  with ; 


and  it  cannot  be  said  that  any  power 
may  not  be  dispensed  with,  if  there  be 
some  ojher  which  might  be  substituted 
for  it,  and  which  would  accomplish  the 
same  end.  Therefore,  no  bank  could 
ever  be  constitutional,  because  none 
could  be  established  which  should  not 
contain  some  provisions  which  might 
have  been  omitted,  and  their  place  sup 
plied  by  others. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  understood  the 
true  and  well-established  doctrine  to  be, 
that,  after  it  has  been  decided  that  it  is 
competent  for  Congress  to  establish  a 
bank,  then  it  follows  that  it  may  create 
such  a  bank  as  it  judges,  in  its  discre 
tion,  to  be  best,  and  invest  it  with  all 
such  power  as  it  may  deem  fit  and  suita 
ble;  with  this  limitation,  always,  that 
all  is  to  be  done  in  the  bona  fide  execu 
tion  of  the  power  to  create  a  bank.  If 
the  granted  powers  are  appropriate  to 
the  professed  end,  so  that  the  granting 
of  them  cannot  be  regarded  as  usurpa 
tion  of  authority  by  Congress,  or  an 
evasion  of  constitutional  restrictions, 
under  color  of  establishing  a  bank,  then 
the  charter  is  constitutional,  whether 
these  powers  be  thought  indispensable 
by  others  or  not,  or  whether  even  Con 
gress  itself  deemed  them  absolutely  in 
dispensable,  or  only  thought  them  fit 
and  suitable,  or  whether  they  are  more 
or  less  appropriate  to  their  end.  It  is 
enough  that  they  are  appropriate;  it  is 
enough  that  they  are  suited  to  produce 
the  effects  designed;  and  no  comparison 
is  to  be  instituted,  in  order  to  try  their 
constitutionality,  between  them  and 
others  which  may  be  suggested.  A  case 
analogous  to  the  present  is  found  in  the 
constitutional  power  of  Congress  over 
the  mail.  The  Constitution  says  no 
more  than  that  "  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  establish  post-offices  and  post- 
roads";  and,  in  the  general  clause,  "all 
powers  necessary  and  proper"  to  give 
effect  to  this.  In  the  execution  of  this 
power,  Congress  has  protected  the  mail, 
by  providing  that  robbery  of  it  shall  be 
punished  with  death.  Is  this  infliction 
of  capital  punishment  constitutional? 
Certainly  it  is  not,  unless  it  be  both 
' '  proper  and  necessary. ' '  The  President 


OF   THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL 


335 


may  not  think  it  necessary  or  proper; 
tli,-  law,  then,  according  to  the  system 
of  reasoning  enforced  by  the  message, 
is  of  no  binding  force,  and  the  President 
may  disobey  it,  and  refuse  to  see  it  exe 
cuted. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  President,  that  if 
the  general  object,  the  subject-matter, 
properly  belong  to  Congress,  all  its  in 
cidents  belong  to  Congress  also.  If 
Congress  is  to  establish  post-offices  and 
post-roads,  it  may,  for  that  end%  adopt 
one  set  of  regulations  or  another;  and 
either  would  be  constitutional.  So  the 
details  of  one  bank  are  as  constitu 
tional  as  those  of  another,  if  they  are 
confined  fairly  and  honestly  to  the  pur 
pose  of  organizing  the  institution,  and 
rendering  it  useful.  One  bank  is  as  con 
stitutional  as  another  bank.  If  Congress 
possesses  the  power  to  make  a  bank,  it 
possesses  the  power  to  make  it  efficient, 
and  competent  to  produce  the  good  ex 
pected  from  it.  It  may  clothe  it  with 
all  such  power  and  privileges,  not  other 
wise  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution, 
as  may  be  necessary,  in  its  own  judg 
ment,  to  make  it  what  government 
deems  it  should  be.  It  may  confer  on 
it  such  immunities  as  may  induce  indi 
viduals  to  become  stockholders,  and  to 
furnish  the  capital;  and  since  the  ex 
tent  of  these  immunities  and  privileges 
is  matter  of  discretion,  and  matter  of 
opinion,  Congress  only  can  decide  it, 
because  Congress  alone  can  frame  or 
grant  the  charter.  A  charter,  thus 
granted  to  individuals,  becomes  a  con 
tract  with  them,  upon  their  compliance 
with  its  terms.  The  bank  becomes  an 
agent,  bound  to  perform  certain  duties, 
and  entitled  to  certain  stipulated  rights 
and  privileges,  in  compensation  for  the 
proper  discharge  of  these  duties;  and 
all  these  stipulations,  so  long  as  they 
are  appropriate  to  the  object  professed, 
and  not  repugnant  to  any  other  consti 
tutional  injunction,  are  entirely  within 
the  competency  of  Congress.  And  yet, 
Sir,  the  message  of  the  President  toils 
through  all  the  commonplace  topics  of 
monopoly,  the  right  of  taxation,  the 
suffering  of  the  poor,  and  the  arrogance 
of  the  rich,  with  as  much  painful  effort, 


as  if  one,  or  another,  or  all  of  them, 
had  something  to  do  with  the  constitu 
tional  question. 

What  is  called  the  ' '  monopoly  ' '  is 
made  the  subject  of  repeated  rehearsal, 
in  terms  of  special  complaint.  By  this 
"  monopoly,"  I  suppose,  is  understood 
the  restriction  contained  in  the  charter, 
that  Congress  shall  not,  during  the 
twenty  years,  create  another  bank. 
Now,  Sir,  let  me  ask,  Who  wrould  think 
of  creating  a  bank,  inviting  stockhold 
ers  into  it,  with  large  investments,  im 
posing  upon  it  heavy  duties,  as  con 
nected  with  the  government,  receiving 
some  millions  of  dollars  as  a  bonus  or 
premium,  and  yet  retaining  the  power 
of  granting,  the  next  day,  another  char 
ter,  which  would  destroy  the  whole  value 
of  the  first?  If  this  be  an  unconstitu 
tional  restraint  on  Congress,  the  Consti 
tution  must  be  strangely  at  variance 
with  the  dictates  both  of  good  sense  and 
sound  morals.  Did  ndt  the  first  Bank 
of  the  United  States  contain  a  similar 
restriction?  And  have  not  the  States 
granted  bank  charters  with  a  condition, 
that,  if  the  charter  should  be  accepted, 
they  would  not  grant  others?  States 
have  certainly  done  so;  and,  in  some 
instances,  where  no  bonus  or  premium 
was  paid  at  all ;  but  from  the  mere  de 
sire  to  give  effect  to  the  charter,  by  in 
ducing  individuals  to  accept  it  and  or 
ganize  the  institution.  The  President 
declares  that  this  restriction  is  not  neces 
sary  to  the  efficiency  of  the  bank;  but 
that  is  the  very  thing  which  Congress 
and  his  predecessor  in  office  were  called 
on  to  decide,  and  which  they  did  decide, 
when  the  one  passed  and  the  other  ap 
proved  the  act.  And  he  has  now  no 
more  authority  to  pronounce  his  judg 
ment  on  that  act  than  any  other  indi 
vidual  in  society.  It  is  not  his  province 
to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  of  stat 
utes  wrhich  Congress  has  passed,  and  his 
predecessors  approved. 

There  is  another  sentiment  in  this 
part  of  the  message,  which  we  should 
hardly  have  expected  to  find  in  a  paper 
which  is  supposed,  whoever  may  have 
drawn  it  up,  to  have  passed  under  the 
review  of  professional  characters.  The 


336 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 


message  declares,  that  this  limitation  to 
create  no  other  bank  is  unconstitutional, 
because,  although  Congress  may  use  the 
discretion  vested  in  them,  "they  may 
not  limit  the  discretion  of  their  suc 
cessors."  This  reason  is  almost  too 
superficial  to  require  an  answer.  Every 
one  at  all  accustomed  to  the  considera 
tion  of  such  subjects  knows  that  every 
Congress  can  bind  its  successors  to  the 
same  extent  that  it  can  bind  itself.  The 
power  of  Congress  is  always  the  same ; 
the  authority  of  law  always  the  same. 
It  is  true,  we  speak  of  the  Twentieth 
Congress  and  the  Twenty-first  Congress ; 
but  this  is  only  to  denote  the  period  of 
time,  or  to  mark  the  successive  organ 
izations  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  under  the  successive  periodical 
election  of  its  members.  As  a  politic 
body,  as  the  legislative  power  of  the 
government,  Congress  is  always  con 
tinuous,  always  identical.  A  particular 
Congress,  as  we  speak  of  it,  for  in 
stance,  the  present  Congress,  can  no 
farther  restrain  itself  from  doing  what 
it  may  choose  to  do  at  the  next  session, 
than  it  can  restrain  any  succeeding  Con 
gress  from  doing  what  it  may  choose. 
Any  Congress  may  repeal  the  act  or  law 
of  its  predecessor,  if  in  its  nature  it  be 
repealable,  just  as  it  may  repeal  its  own 
act ;  and  if  a  law  or  an  act  be  irrepeal- 
able  in  its  nature,  it  can  no  more  be  re 
pealed  by  a  subsequent  Congress  than 
by  that  which  passed  it.  All  this  is 
familiar  to  everybody.  And  Congress, 
like  every  other  legislature,  often  passes 
acts  which,  being  in  the  nature  of  grants 
or  contracts,  are  irrepealable  ever  after 
wards.  The  message,  in  a  strain  of  ar 
gument  which  it  is  difficult  to  treat  with 
ordinary  respect,  declares  that  this  re 
striction  on  the  power  of  Congress,  as 
to  the  establishment  of  other  banks,  is 
a  palpable  attempt  to  amend  the  Con 
stitution  by  an  act  of  legislation.  The 
reason  on  which  this  observation  pur 
ports  to  be  founded  is,  that  Congress, 
by  the  Constitution,  is  to  have  exclusive 
legislation  over  the  District  of  Colum 
bia;  and  when  the  bank  charter  de 
clares  that  Congress  will  create  no  new 
bank  within  the  District,  it  annuls  this 


power  of  exclusive  legislation !  I  must 
say,  that  this  reasoning  hardly  rises  high 
enough  Jo  entitle  it  to  a  passing  notice. 
It  would  be  doing  it  too  much  credit  to 
call  it  plausible.  No  one  needs  to  be 
informed  that  exclusive  powrer  of  legis 
lation  is  not  unlimited  power  of  legisla 
tion;  and  if  it  were,  how  can  that  legis 
lative  power  be  unlimited  that  cannot 
restrain  itself,  that  cannot  bind  itself  by 
contract?  Whether  as  a  government  or 
as  an  individual,  that  being  is  fettered 
and  restrained  which  is  not  capable  of 
binding  itself  by  ordinary  obligation. 
Every  legislature  binds  itself,  whenever 
it  makes  a  grant,  enters  into  a  contract, 
bestows  an  office,  or  does  any  other  act 
or  thing  which  is  in  its  nature  irrepeal 
able.  And  this,  instead  of  detracting 
from  its  legislative  power,  is  one  of  the 
modes  of  exercising  that  power.  The 
legislative  power  of  Congress  over  the 
District  of  Columbia  would  not  be  full 
and  complete,  if  it  might  not  make  just 
such  a  stipulation  as  the  bank  charter 
contains. 

As  to  the  taxing  power  of  the  States, 
about  which  the  message  says  so  much, 
the  proper  answer  to  all  it  says  is,  that 
the  States  possess  no  power  to  tax  any 
instrument  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  no  part  of  their 
power  before  the  Constitution,  and  they 
derive  no  such  power  from  any  of  its 
provisions.  It  is  nowhere  given  to  them. 
Could  a  State  tax  the  coin  of  the  United 
States  at  the  mint?  Could  a  State  lay  a 
stamp  tax  on  the  process  of  the  courts  of 
the  United  States,  and  on  custom-house 
papers?  Could  it  tax  the  transporta 
tion  of  the  mail,  or  the  ships  of  war,  or 
the  ordnance,  or  the  muniments  of  war, 
of  the  United  States?  The  reason  that 
these  cannot  be  taxed  by  a  State  is,  that 
they  are  means  and  instruments  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  The 
establishment  of  a  bank  exempt  from 
State  taxation  takes  away  no  existing 
right  in  a  State.  It  leaves  it  all  it  ever 
possessed.  But  the  complaint  is,  that 
the  bank  charter  does  not  confer  the 
power  of  taxation.  This,  certainly, 
though  not  a  new,  (for  the  same  argu 
ment  was  urged  here,)  appears  to  me 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES  BANK  BILL. 


337 


to  be  a  strange,  mode  of  asserting  and 
maintaining  State  rights.  The  power 
of  taxation  is  a  sovereign  power;  and 
the  President  and  those  who  think  with 
him  are  of  opinion,  in  a  given  case, 
that  this  sovereign  power  should  be 
conferred  on  the  States  by  an  act  of 
Congress.  There  is,  if  I  mistake  not, 
Sir,  as  little  compliment  to  State  sov 
ereignty  in  this  idea,  as  there  is  of 
sound  constitutional  doctrine.  Sover 
eign  rights  held  under  the  grant  of  an 
act  of  Congress  present  a  proposition 
quite  new  in  constitutional  law. 

The  President  himself  even  admits 
that  an  instrument  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  ought  not,  as  such,  to 
be  taxed  by  the  States ;  yet  he  contends 
for  such  a  power  of  taxing  property  con 
nected  with  this  instrument,  and  essen 
tial  to  its  very  being,  as  places  its  whole 
existence  in  the  pleasure  of  the  States. 
It  is  not  enough  that  the  States  may 
tax  all  the  property  of  all  their  own 
citizens,  wherever  invested  or  however 
employed.  The  complaint  is,  that  the 
power  of  State  taxation  does  not  reach 
so  far  as  to  take  cognizance  over  persons 
out  of  the  State,  and  to  tax  them  for  a 
franchise  lawfully  exercised  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States.  Sir, 
when  did  the  power  of  the  States,  or 
indeed  of  any  government,  go  to  such 
an  extent  as  that?  Clearly  never.  The 
taxing  power  of  all  communities  is 
necessarily  and  justly  limited  to  the 
property  of  its  own  citizens,  and  to  the 
property  of  others,  having  a  distinct 
local  existence  as  property,  within  its 
jurisdiction;  it  does  not  extend  to  rights 
and  franchises,  rightly  exercised,  under 
the  authority  of  other  governments,  nor 
to  persons  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  As 
the  Constitution  has  left  the  taxing 
power  of  the  States,  so  the  bank  char 
ter  leaves  it.  Congress  has  not  under 
taken  either  to  take  away,  or  to  confer, 
a  taxing  power;  nor  to  enlarge,  or  to 
restrain  it;  if  it  were  to  do  either,  1 
hardly  know  which  of  the  two  would 
be  the  least  excusable. 

I  beg  leave  to  repeat,  Mr.  President, 
that  what  I  have  now  been  considering 
are  the  President's  objections,  not  to 


the  policy  or  expediency,  but  to  the 
constitutionality,  of  the  bank;  and  not 
to  the  constitutionality  of  any  new  or 
proposed  bank,  but  of  the  bank  as  it 
now  is,  and  as  it  has  long  existed.  If 
the  President  had  declined  to  approve 
this  bill  because  he  thought  the  original 
charter  unwisely  granted,  and  the  bank, 
in  point  of  policy  and  expediency,  ob 
jectionable  or  mischievous,  and  in  that 
view  only  had  suggested  the  reasons 
now  urged  by  him,  his  argument,  how 
ever  inconclusive,  would  have  been  in 
telligible,  and  not,  in  its  whole  frame 
and  scope,  inconsistent  with  all  well- 
established  first  principles.  His  rejec 
tion  of  the  bill,  in  that  case,  would  have 
been,  no  doubt,  an  extraordinary  exer 
cise  of  power;  but  it  would  have  been, 
nevertheless,  the  exercise  of  a  power 
belonging  to  his  office,  and  trusted  by 
the  Constitution  to  his  discretion.  But 
when  he  puts  forth  an  array  of  argu 
ments  such  as  the  message  employs,  not 
against  the  expediency  of  the  bank,  but 
against  its  constitutional  existence,  he 
confounds  all  distinctions,  mixes  ques 
tions  of  policy  and  questions  of  right 
together,  and  turns  all  constitutional 
restraints  into  mere  matters  of  opinion. 
As  far  as  its  power  extends,  either  in 
its  direct  effects  or  as  a  precedent,  the 
message  not  only  unsettles  every  thing 
which  has  been  settled  under  the  Con 
stitution,  but  would  show,  also,  that  the 
Constitution  itself  is  utterly  incapable 
of  any  fixed  construction  or  definite  in 
terpretation,  and  that  there  is  no  possi 
bility  of  establishing,  by  its  authority, 
any  practical  limitations  on  the  powers 
of  the  respective  branches  of  the  govern 
ment. 

When  the  message  denies,  as  it  does, 
the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  to 
decide  on  constitutional  questions,  it 
effects,  so  far  as  the  opinion  of  the 
President  and  his  authority  can  effect 
it,  a  complete  change  in  our  govern 
ment.  It  does  two  things:  first,  it  con 
verts  constitutional  limitations  of  power 
into  mere  matters  of  opinion,  and  then 
it  strikes  the  judicial  department,  as  an 
efficient  department,  out  of  our  system. 
But  the  message  by  no  means  stops  even 


338 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO. 


at  this  point.  Having  denied  to  Con 
gress  the  authority  of  judging  what 
powers  may  be  constitutionally  con 
ferred  on  a  bank,  and  having  erected 
the  judgment  of  the  President  himself 
into  a  standard  by  which  to  try  the  con 
stitutional  character  of  such  powers,  and 
having  denounced  the  authority  of  the 
Supreme  Court  to  decide  finally  on  con 
stitutional  questions,  the  message  pro 
ceeds  to  claim  for  the  President,  not 
the  power  of  approval,  but  the  primary 
power,  the  power  of  originating  laws. 
The  President  informs  Congress,  that 
he  would  have  sent  them  such  a  charter, 
if  it  had  been  properly  asked  for,  as 
they  ought  to  confer.  He  very  plainly 
intimates,  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  es 
tablishment  of  all  laws,  of  this  nature 
at  least,  belongs  to  the  functions  of  the 
executive  government;  and  that  Con 
gress  ought  to  have  waited  for  the  mani 
festation  of  the  executive  will,  before  it 
presumed  to  touch  the  subject.  Such, 
Mr.  President,  stripped  of  their  dis 
guises,  are  the  real  pretences  set  up  in 
behalf  of  the  executive  power  in  this 
most  extraordinary  paper. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  arrived  at  a 
new  epoch.  We  are  entering  on  ex 
periments,  with  the  government  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  country,  hitherto 
untried,  and  of  fearful  and  appalling 
aspect.  This  message  calls  us  to  the 
contemplation  of  a  future  which  little 
resembles  the  past.  Its  principles  are 
at  war  with  all  that  public  opinion  has 
sustained,  and  all  which  the  experience 
of  the  government  has  sanctioned.  It 
denies  first  principles  ;  it  contradicts 
truths,  heretofore  received  as  indisputa 
ble.  It  denies  to  the  judiciary  the  in 
terpretation  of  law,  and  claims  to  divide 
with  Congress  the  power  of  originating 
statutes.  It  extends  the  grasp  of  execu 
tive  pretension  over  every  power  of  the 
government..  But  this  is  not  all.  It 
presents  the  chief  magistrate  of  the 
Union  in  the  attitude  of  arguing  away 


the  powers  of  that  government  over 
which  he  has  been  chosen  to  preside; 
and  adopting  for  this  purpose  modes  of 
reasoning  which,  even  under  the  influ 
ence  of  all  proper  feeling  towards  high 
official  station,  it  is  difficult  to  regard  as 
respectable.  It  appeals  to  every  preju 
dice  which  may  betray  men  into  a  mis 
taken  view  of  their  own  interests,  and 
to  every  passion  which  may  lead  them 
to  disobey  the  impulses  of  their  under 
standing.  It  urges  all  the  specious 
topics  of  State  rights  and  national  en 
croachment  against  that  which  a  great 
majority  of  the  States  have  affirmed  to 
be  rightful,  and  in  which  all  of  them 
have  acquiesced.  It  sows,  in  an  un 
sparing  manner,  the  seeds  of  jealousy 
and  ill-will  against  that  government  of 
which  its  author  is  the  official  head.  It 
raises  a  cry,  that  liberty  is  in  danger,  at 
the  very  moment  when  it  puts  forth 
claims  to  powers  heretofore  unknown 
and  unheard  of.  It  affects  alarm  for 
the  public  freedom,  when  nothing  en 
dangers  that  freedom  so  much  as  its 
own  unparalleled  pretences.  This,  even, 
is  not  all.  It  manifestly  seeks  to  in 
flame  the  poor  against  the  rich ;  it  wan 
tonly  attacks  whole  classes  of  the  peo 
ple,  for  the  purpose  of  turning  against 
them  the  prejudices  and  the  resent 
ments  of  other  classes.  It  is  a  state 
paper  which  finds  no  topic  too  exciting 
for  its  use,  no  passion  too  inflammable 
for  its  address  and  its  solicitation. 

Such  is  this  message.  It  remains 
now  for  the  people  of  the  United  States 
to  choose  between  the  principles  here 
avowred  and  their  government.  These 
cannot  subsist  together.  The  one  or 
the  other  must  be  rejected.  If  the  sen 
timents  of  the  message  shall  receive 
general  approbation,  the  Constitution 
will  have  perished  even  earlier  than  the 
moment  which  its  enemies  originally 
allowed  for  the  termination  of  its  exist 
ence.  It  will  not  have  survived  to  its 
fiftieth  year. 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  A  PUBLIC  DINNER  IN  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON, 
ON  THE  22o  OF  FEBRUARY.  1832,  THE  CENTENNIAL  ANNIVERSARY  OF 
WASHINGTON'S  BIRTHDAY. 


[Ox  the  22d  of  February,  1832,  being  the 
centennial  birthday  of  GEORGE  WASHING 
TON,  a  number  of  gentlemen,  members  of 
Congress  and  others,  from  different  parts 
of  the  Union,  united  in  commemorating 
the  occasion  by  a  public  dinner  in  the  city 
of  Washington. 

At  the  request  of  the  Committee  of  Ar 
rangements,  Mr.  Webster,  then  a  Senator 
from  Massachusetts,  occupied  the  chair. 
After  the  cloth  was  removed,  he  addressed 
the  company  in  the  following  manner.] 

I  RISE,  Gentlemen,  to  propose  to  you 
the  name  of  that  great  man,  in  com 
memoration  of  whose  birth,  and  in 
honor  of  whose  character  and  services, 
we  are  here  assembled. 

I  am  sure  that  I  express  a  sentiment 
common  to  every  one  present,  when  I 
say  that  there  is  something  more  than 
ordinarily  solemn  and  affecting  in  this 
occasion. 

AWe  are  met  to  testify  our  regard  for 
him  whose  name  is  intimately  blended 
with  whatever  belongs  most  essentially 
to  the  prosperity,  the  liberty,  the  free 
institutions,  and  the  renown  of  our 
country.  That  name  was  of  power  to 
rally  a  nation,  in  the  hour  of  thick- 
thronging  public  disasters  and  calam 
ities;  that  name  shone,  amid  the  storm 
of  war,  a  beacon  light,  to  cheer  and 
guide  the  country's  friends ;  it  named, 
too,  like  a  meteor,  to  repel  her  foes. 
That  name,  in  the  days  of  peace,  was  a 
loadstone,  attracting  to  itself  a  whole 
people's  confidence,  a  whole  people's 
love,  and  the  whole  world's  respect. 
That  name,  descending  with  all  time, 


spreading  over  the  whole  earth,  and 
uttered  in  all  the  languages  belonging 
to  the  tribes  and  races  of  men,  will  for 
ever  be  pronounced  with  affectionate 
gratitude  by  every  one  in  whose  breast 
there  shall  arise  an  aspiration  for  hu 
man  rights  and  human  liberty. 

We  perform  this  grateful  duty,  Gen 
tlemen,  at  the  expiration  of  a  hundred 
years  from  his  birth,  near  the  place,  so 
cherished  and  beloved  by  him,  where 
his  dust  now  reposes,  and  in  the  capital 
which  bears  his  own  immortal  name. 

All  experience  evinces  that  human 
sentiments  are  strongly  influenced  by 
associations.^,  The  recurrence  of  anni 
versaries,  or  of  longer  periods  of  time, 
naturally  freshens  the  recollection,  and 
deepens  the  impression,  of  events  with 
which  they  are  historically  connected. 
Renowned  places,  also,  have  a  power  to 
awaken  feeling,  which  all  acknowledge. 
No  American  can  pass  by  the  fields  of 
Bunker  Hill,  Monmouth,  and  Camden, 
as  if  they  were  ordinary  spots  on  the 
earth's  surface.  Whoever  visits  them 
feels  the  sentiment  of  love  of  country 
kindling  anew,  as  if  the  spirit  that  be 
longed  to  the  transactions  which  have 
rendered  these  places  distinguished  still 
hovered  round,  with  power  to  move  and 
excite  all  who  in  future  time  may  ap 
proach  them. 

^  But  neither  of  these  sources  of  emo 
tion  equals  the  power  with  which  great 
moral  examples  affect  the  mind.^  When 
sublime  virtues  cease  to  be  abstractions, 
when  they  become  embodied  in  human 


340 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


character,  and  exemplified  in  human 
conduct,  we  should  be  false  to  our  own 
nature,  if  we  did  not  indulge  in  the 
spontaneous  effusions  of  our  gratitude 
and  our  admiration.  A  true  lover  of 
the  virtue  of  patriotism  delights  to  con 
template  its  purest  models;  and  that 
love  of  country  may  be  well  suspected 
which  affects  to  soar  so  high  into  the 
regions  of  sentiment  as  to  be  lost  and 
absorbed  in  the  abstract  feeling,  and 
becomes  too  elevated  or  too  refined  to 
glow  with  fervor  in  the  commendation 
or  the  love  of  individual  benefactors. 
All  this  is  unnatural.  It  is  as  if  one 
should  be  so  enthusiastic  a  lover  of 
poetry,  as  to  care  nothing  for  Homer  or 
Milton ;  so  passionately  attached  to  elo 
quence  as  to  be  indifferent  to  Tully  and 
Chatham;  or  such  a  devotee  to  the  arts, 
in  such  an  ecstasy  with  the  elements  of 
beauty,  proportion,  and  expression,  as 
to  regard  the  masterpieces  of  Raphael 
and  Michael  Angelo  with  coldness  or 
contempt.  We  may  be  assured,  Gentle 
men,  that  he  who  really  loves  the  thing 
itself,  loves  its  finest  exhibitions.  A 
true  friend  of  his  country  loves  her 
friends  and  benefactors,  and  thinks  it 
no  degradation  to  commend  and  com 
memorate  them.  The  voluntary  out 
pouring  of  the  public  feeling,  made 
to-day,  from  the  North  to  the  South, 
and  from  the  East  to  the  West,  proves 
this  sentiment  to  be  both  just  and 
natural.  In  the  cities  and  in  the  vil 
lages,  in  the  public  temples  and  in  the 
family  circles,  among  all  ages  and 
sexes,  gladdened  voices  to-day  bespeak 
grateful  hearts  and  a  freshened  recollec 
tion  of  the  virtues  of  the  Father  of  his 
Country.  And  it  will  be  so,  in  all 
time  to  come,  so  long  as  public  virtue  is 
itself  an  object  of  regard.  The  ingen 
uous  youth  of  America  will  hold  up  to 
themselves  the  bright  model  of  Wash 
ington's  example,  and  study  to  be  what 
they  behold;  they  will  contemplate  his 
character  till  all  its  virtues  spread  out 
and  display  themselves  to  their  de 
lighted  vision;  as  the  earliest  astrono 
mers,  the  shepherds  on  the  plains  of 
Babylon,  gazed  at  the  stars  till  they  saw 
them  form  into  clusters  and  constella 


tions,  overpowering  at  length  the  eyes 
of  the  beholders  with  the  united  blaze 
of  a  thousand  lights. 
-''Gentlemen,  we  are  at  a  point  of  a 
century  from  the  birth  of  Washington ; 
and  what  a  century  it  has  been !  Dur 
ing  its  course,  the  human  mind  has 
seemed  to  proceed  with  a  sort  of  ge 
ometric  velocity,  accomplishing  for  hu 
man  intelligence  and  human  freedom 
more  than  Tiad  been  done  in  fives  or 
tens  of  centuries  preceding.  Wash 
ington  stands  at  the  commencement  of 
a  new  era,  as  well  as  at  the  head  of  the 
New  World.  A  century  from  the  birth 
of  Washington  has  changed  the  world. 
The  country  of  Washington  has  been 
the  theatre  on  which  a  great  part  of 
that  change  has  been  wrought,  and 
Washington  himself  a  principal  agent 
by  which  it  has  been  accomplished. 
His  age  and  his  country  are  equally 
full  of  wonders ;  and  of  both  he  is  the 
chief. 

If  the  poetical  prediction,  uttered  a 
few  years  before  his  birth,  be  true;  if 
indeed  it  be  designed  by  Providence 
that  the  grandest  exhibition  of  human 
character  and  human  affairs  shall  be 
made  on  this  theatre  of  the  Western 
world ;  if  it  be  true  that, 

"The  four  first  acts  already  past, 
A  fifth  shall  close  the  drama  with  the  day ; 
Time's  noblest  offspring  is  the  last"  ;  — 

how  could  this  imposing,  swelling,  final 
scene  be  appropriately  opened,  how  could 
its  intense  interest  be  adequately  sus 
tained,  but  by  the  introduction  of  just 
such  a  character  as  our  Washington? 

Washington  had  attained  his  man 
hood  when  that  spark  of  liberty  was 
struck  out  in  his  own  country,  which 
has  since  kindled  into  a  flame,  and  shot 
its  beams  over  the  earth.  In  the  flow 
of  a  century  from  his  birth,  the  world 
has  changed  in  science,  in  arts,  in  the 
extent  of  commerce,  in  the  improve 
ment  of  navigation,  and  in  all  that  re 
lates  to  the  civilization  of  man.  i  But  it 
is  the  spirit  of  human  freedom,  the  new 
elevation  of  individual  man,  in  his 
moral,  social,  and  political  character, 
leading  the  whole  long  train  of  other 
improvements,  which  has  most  remark- 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


341 


ably  distinguished  the  era.  Society,  in 
this  century,  has  not  made  its  progress, 
like  Chinese  skill,  by  a  greater  acute- 
ness  of  ingenuity  in  trifles ;  it  has  not 
merely  lashed  itself  to  an  increased 
speed  round  the  old  circles  of  thought 
and  action ;  but  it  has  assumed  a  new 
character;  it  has  raised  itself  from  be 
neath  governments  to  a  participation  in 
governments;  it  has  mixed  moral  and 
political  objects  with  the  daily  pursuits 
of  individual  men ;  and,  with  a  freedom 
and  strength  before  altogether  unknown, 
it  has  applied  to  these  objects  the  whole 
power  of  the  human  understanding.  It 
has  been  the  era,  in  short,  when  the 
social  principle  has  triumphed  over  the 
feudal  principle;  when  society  has 
maintained  its  rights  against  military 
power,  and  established,  on  foundations 
never  hereafter  to  be  shaken,  its  com 
petency  to  govern  itself. 

It  was  the  extraordinary  fortune  of 
Washington,  that,  having  been  in 
trusted,  in  revolutionary  times,  with 
the  supreme  military  command,  and 
having  fulfilled  that  trust  \vith  equal 
renown  for  wisdom  and  for  valor,  he 
should  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  first 
government  in  \vhich  an  attempt  was  to 
be  made  on  a  large  scale  to  rear  the 
fabric  of  social  order  on  the  basis  of  a 
written  constitution  and  of  a  pure  rep 
resentative  principle.  A  government 
was  to  be  established,  without  a  throne, 
without  an  aristocracy,  without  castes, 
orders,  or  privileges;  and  this  govern 
ment,  instead  of  being  a  democracy, 
existing  and  acting  within  the  walls  of 
a  single  city,  was  to  be  extended  over  a 
vast  country,  of  different  climates,  in 
terests,  and  habits,  and  of  various  com 
munions  of  our  common  Christian  faith. 
The  experiment  certainly  was  entirely 
new.  A  popular  government  of  this 
extent,  it  was  evident,  could  be  framed 
only  by  carrying  into  full  effect  the 
principle  of  representation  or  of  dele 
gated  power ;  and  the  world  was  to  see 
whether  society  could,  by  the  strength 
of  this  principle,  maintain  its  own 
peace  and  good  government,  carry  for 
ward  its  owrn  great  interests,  and  con 
duct  itself  to  political  renown  and  glory. 


By  the  benignity  of  Providence,  this 
experiment,  so  full  of  interest  to  us 
and  to  our  posterity  for  ever,  so  full  of 
interest,  indeed,  to  the  world  in  its  pres 
ent  generation  and  in  all  its  generations 
to  come,  was  suffered  to  commence 
under  the  guidance  of  Washington. 
'  Destined  for  this  high  career,  he  was 
fitted  for  it  by  wisdom,  by  virtue,  by 
patriotism,  by  discretion,  by  whatever 
can  inspire  confidence  in  man  toward 
man.  In  entering  on  the  untried 
scenes,  early  disappointment  and  the 
premature  extinction  of  all  hope  of 
success  would  have  been  certain,  had  it 
not  been  that  there  did  exist  throughout 
the  country,  in  a  most  extraordinary 
degree,  an  unwavering  trust  in  him 
who  stood  at  the  helm. 

I  remarked,  Gentlemen,  that  the  whole 
world  was  and  is  interested  in  the  result 
of  this  experiment.  And  is  it  not  so  ? 
Do  we  deceive  ourselves,  or  is  it  true 
that  at  this  moment  the  career  which 
this  government  is  running  is  among  the 
most  attractive  objects  to  the  civilized 
world  ?  Do  we  deceive  ourselves,  or  is 
it  true  that  at  this  moment  that  love  of 
liberty  and  that  understanding  of  its 
true  principles  which  are  flying  over  the 
whole  earth,  as  on  the  wings  of  all  the 
winds,  are  really  and  truly  of  American 
origin  ? 

At  the  period  of  the  birth  of  Wash 
ington,  there  existed  in  Europe  no  polit 
ical  liberty  in  large  communities,  except 
in  the  provinces  of  Holland,  rand  except 
that  England  herself  had  set  a  great  ex 
ample,  so  far  as  it  went,  by  her  glorious 
Revolution  of  1688.  Everywhere  else, 
despotic  power  was  predominant,  and 
the  feudal  or  military  principle  held  the 
mass  of  mankind  in  hopeless  bondage. 
One  half  of  Europe  was  crushed  beneath 
the  Bourbon  sceptre,  and  no  conception 
of  political  liberty,  no  hope  even  of  re 
ligious  toleration,  existed  among  that 
nation  which  was  America's  first  ally. 
The  king  was  the  state,  the  king  was 
the  country,  the  king  was  all.  There 
was  one  king,  with  power  not  derived 
from  his  people,  and  too  high  to  be 
questioned;  and  the  rest  were  all  sub 
jects,  with  no  political  right  but  obedi- 


342 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


ence.  All  above  was  intangible  power, 
all  below  quiet  subjection.  A  recent  oc 
currence  in  the  French  Chambers  shows 
us  how  public  opinion  on  these  subjects 
is  changed.  A  minister  had  spoken  of 
the  "king's  subjects."  "  There  are  no 
subjects,"  exclaimed  hundreds  of  voices 
at  once,  "  in  a  country  where  the  people 
make  the  king!  " 

'/  Gentlemen,  the  spirit  of  human  lib 
erty  and  of  free  government,  nurtured 
and  grown  into  strength  and  beauty  in 
America,  has  stretched  its  course  into 
the  midst  of  the  nations.'  ^"Like  an  ema 
nation  from  Heaven,  it  has  gone  forth, 
and  it  will  not  return  void.  It  must 
change,  it  is  fast  changing,  the  face  of 
the  earth.  Our  great,  our  high  duty  is 
to  show,  in  our  own  example,  that  this 
spirit  is  a  spirit  of  health  as  well  as  a 
spirit  of  power ;  that  its  benignity  is  as 
great  as  its  strength;  that  its  efficiency 
to  secure  individual  rights,  social  rela 
tions,  and  moral  order,  is  equal  to  the 
irresistible  force  with  which  it  prostrates 
principalities  and  powers.  The  world, 
at  this  moment,  is  regarding  us  with  a 
willing,  but  something  of  a  fearful  ad 
miration.  Its  deep  and  awful  anxiety 
is  to  learn  whether  free  states  may  be 
stable,  as  well  as  free;  whether  popular 
power  may  be  trusted,  as  well  as  feared; 
in  short,  whether  wise,  regular,  and  vir 
tuous  self-government  is  a  vision  for  the 
contemplation  of  theorists,  or  a  truth 
established,  illustrated,  and  brought  into 
practice  in  the  country  of  Washington. 
)  Gentlemen,  for  the  earth  which  we 
inhabit,  and  the  whole  circle  of  the  sun, 
for  all  the  unborn  races  of  mankind,  we 
seem  to  hold  in  our  hands,  for  their 
weal  or  woe,  the  fate  of  this  experi 
ment.  <  If  we  fail,  who  shall  venture  the 
repetition  ?  If  our  example  shall  prove 
to  be  one,  not  of  encouragement,  but  of 
terror,  not  fit  to  be  imitated,  but  fit 
only  to  be  shunned,  where  else  shall  the 
world  look  for  free  models?  If  this 
great  Western  Sun  be  struck  out  of  the 
firmament,  at  what  other  fountain  shall 
the  lamp  of  liberty  hereafter  be  lighted  V 
What  other  orb  shall  emit  a  ray  to  glim 
mer,  even,  on  the  darkness  of  the  world  V 
There  is  no  danger  of  our  overrating 


or  overstating  the  important  part  which 
we  are  now  acting  in  human  aff airs.*'  It 
should  not  flatter  our  personal  self-re 
spect,  but  it  should  reanimate  our  patri 
otic  virtues,  and  inspire  us  with  a  deeper 
and  more  solemn  sense,  both  of  our  priv 
ileges  and  of  our  duties.  We  cannot 
wish  better  for  our  country,  nor  for  the 
world,  than  that  the  same  spirit  which 
influenced  Washington  may  influence  all 
who  succeed'  him;  and  that  the  same 
blessing  from  above,  which  attended  his 
efforts,  may  also  attend  theirs. 

The  principles  of  Washington's  ad 
ministration  are  not  left  doubtful.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  it 
self,  in  the  great  measures  recommended 
and  approved  by  him,  in  his  speeches  to 
Congress,  and  in  that  most  interesting 
paper,  his  Farewell  Address  to  the  Peo 
ple  of  the  United  States.  The  success 
of  the  government  under  his  administra 
tion  is  the  highest  proof  of  the  sound 
ness  of  these  principles.  And,  after  an 
experience  of  thirty-five  years,  what  is 
there  which  an  enemy  could  condemn  ? 
What  is  there  which  either  his  friends, 
or  the  friends  of  the  country,  could  wish 
to  have  been  otherwise  ?  I  speak,  of 
course,  of  great  measures  and  leading 
principles. 

^lln  the  first  place,  all  his  measures 
were  right  in  their  intent.  He  stated 
the  whole  basis  of  his  own  great  charac 
ter,  when  he  told  the  country,  in  the 
homely  phrase  of  the  proverb,  that  hon 
esty  is  the  best  policy.  One  of  the  most 
striking  things  ever  said  of  him  is,  that 
11  he  changed  mankind's  ideas  of  political 
greatness."1  To  commanding  talents, 
and  to  success,  the  common  elements 
of  such  greatness,  he  added  a  disregard 
of  self,  a  spotlessness  of  motive,  a  steady 
submission  to  every  public  and  private 
duty,  which  threw  far  into  the  shade 
the  whole  crowd  of  vulgar  great.  The 
object  of  his  regard  was  the  whole  coun 
try.  No  part  of  it  was  enough  to  fill  his 
enlarged  patriotism.  His  love  of  glory, 
so  far  as  that  may  be  supposed  to  have 
influenced  him  at  all,  spurned  every  thing 
short  of  general  approbation.  It  would 
have  been  nothing  to  him,  that  his  par- 
i  See  Works  of  Fisher  Ames,  pp.  122,  123. 


i/TY 

\.  f\r- 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASH 


343 


tisans  or  his  favorites  outnumbered,  or 
outvoted,  or  outmanaged,  or  outclam- 
ored,  those  of  other  leaders.  He  had  no 
favorites;  he  rejected  all  partisanship; 
and,  acting  honestly  for  the  universal 
good,  he  deserved,  what  he  has  so  richly 
enjoyed,  the  universal  love. 
'  His  principle  it  was  to  act  right,  and 
to  trust  the  people  for  support ;  his  prin 
ciple  it  was  not  to  follow  the  lead  of 
sinister  and  selfish  ends,  nor  to  rely  on 
the  little  arts  of  party  delusion  to  obtain 
public  sanction  for  such  a  course.  Born 
for  his  country  and  for  the  world,  he  did 
not  give  up  to  party  what  was  meant 
for  mankind.  The  consequence  is,  that 
his  fame  is  as  durable  as  his  principles, 
as  lasting  as  truth  and  virtue  them 
selves.  While  the  hundreds  whom  par 
ty  excitement,  and  temporary  circum 
stances,  and  casual  combinations,  have 
raised  into  transient  notoriety,  sink 
again,  like  thin  bubbles,  bursting  and 
dissolving  into  the  great  ocean,  Wash 
ington's  fame  is  like  the  rock  which 
bounds  that  ocean,  and  at  whose  feet  its 
billows  are  destined  to  break  harmlessly 
for  ever. 

(The  maxims  upon  which  Washington 
conducted  our  foreign  relations  were  few 
and  simple. }  The  first  was  an  entire  and 
indisputable  impartiality  towards  for 
eign  states.  He  adhered  to  this  rule  of 
public  conduct,  against  very  strong  in 
ducements  to  depart  from  it,  and  when 
the  popularity  of  the  moment  seemed  to 
favor  such  a  departure.  In  the  next 
place,  he  maintained  true  dignity  and 
unsullied  honor  in  all  communications 
with  foreign  states.  It  was  among  the 
high  duties  devolved  upon  him,  to  intro 
duce  our  new  government  into  the  circle 
of  civilized  states  and  powerful  nations. 
Not  arrogant  or  assuming,  with  no  un 
becoming  or  supercilious  bearing,  he  yet 
exacted  for  it  from  all  others  entire  and 
punctilious  respect.  He  demanded,  and 
he  obtained  at  once,  a  standing  of  per 
fect  equality  for  his  country  in  the  soci 
ety  of  nations ;  nor  was  there  a  prince 
or  potentate  of  his  day,  whose  personal 
character  carried  with  it,  into  the  inter 
course  of  other  states,  a  greater  degree 
of  respect  and  veneration. 


NHe  regarded  other  nations  only  as  they 
stood  in  political  relations  to  us.  With 
their  internal  affairs,  their  political  par 
ties  and  dissensions,  he  scrupulously  ab 
stained  from  all  interference;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  repelled  with  spirit 
all  such  interference  by  others  with  us 
or  our  concerns.  His  sternest  rebuke, 
the  most  indignant  measure  of  his  whole 
administration,  was  aimed  against  such 
an  attempted  interference.  He  felt  it  as 
an  attempt  to  wound  the  national  honor, 
and  resented  it  accordingly. 

The  reiterated  admonitions  in  his 
Farewell  Address  show  his  deep  fears 
that  foreign  influence  would  insinuate 
itself  into  our  counsels  through  the  chan 
nels  of  domestic  dissension,  and  obtain 
a  sympathy  with  our  own  temporary  par 
ties.  Against  all  such  dangers,  he  most 
earnestly  entreats  the  country  to  guard 
itself: },  He  appeals  to  its  patriotism,  to  its 
self-respect,  to  its  own  honor,  to  every 
consideration  connected  with  its  welfare 
and  happiness,  to  resist,  at  the  very  be 
ginning,  all  tendencies  towards  such  con 
nection  of  foreign  interests  with  our 
own  affairs.  With  a  tone  of  earnestness 
nowhere  else  found,  even  in  his  last  af 
fectionate  farewell  advice  to  his  country 
men,  he  says,  "Against  the  insidious 
wiles  of  foreign  influence,  (I  conjure  you 
to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens,)  the  jeal 
ousy  of  a  free  people  ought  to  be  con- 
stantly  awake;  since  history  and  experi 
ence  prove,  that  foreign  influence  is  one 
of  the  most  baneful  foes  of  republican 
government." 

•  Lastly,  on  the  subject  of  foreign  rela 
tions,  Washington  never  forgot  that  we 
had  interests  peculiar  to  ourselves.  '"The 
primary  political  concerns  of  Europe,  he 
saw,  did  not  affect  us.  We  had  nothing 
to  do  with  her  balance  of  power,  her 
family  compacts,  or  her  successions  to 
thrones.  We  were  placed  in  a  condition 
favorable  to  neutrality  during  European 
wars,  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  all 
the  great  advantages  of  that  relation. 
"  Why,  then,"  he  asks  us,  "  why  forego 
the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a  situa 
tion?  Why  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon 
foreign  ground?  Why,  by  interweaving 
our  destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of 


344 


THE  CHARACTER  OF   WASHINGTON. 


Europe,  entangle  our  peace  and  pros 
perity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition, 
rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or  caprice?  " 
\  Indeed,  Gentlemen,  Washington's 
Farewell  Address  is  full  of  truths  im 
portant  at  all  times,  and  particularly 
deserving  consideration  at  the  present. ' 
With  a  sagacity  which  brought  the  fu 
ture  before  him,  and  made  it  like  the 
present,  he  saw  and  pointed  out  the 
dangers  that  even  at  this  moment  most 
imminently  threaten  us.  I  hardly  know 
how  a  greater  service  of  that  kind 
could  now  be  done  to  the  community, 
than  by  a  renewed  and  wide  diffusion 
of  that  admirable  paper,  and  an  ear 
nest  invitation  to  every  man  in  the 
country  to  reperuse  and  consider  it. 
Its  political  maxims  are  invaluable ;  its 
exhortations  to  love  of  country  and 
to  brotherly  affection  among  citizens, 
touching ;  and  the  solemnity  with  which 
it  urges  the  observance  of  moral  duties, 
and  impresses  the  power  of  religious 
obligation,  gives  to  it  the  highest  char 
acter  of  truly  disinterested,  sincere,  pa 
rental  advice. 

The  domestic  policy  of  Washington 
found  its  pole-star  in  the  avowed  objects 
of  the  Constitution  itself  :s  He  sought  so 
to  administer  that  Constitution,  as  to 
form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  pro 
vide  for  the  common  defence,  promote 
the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless 
ings  of  liberty.  These  were  objects  in 
teresting,  in  the  highest  degree,  to  the 
whole  country,  and  his  policy  embraced 
the  whole  country. 

Among  his  earliest  and  most  impor 
tant  duties  was  the  organization  of  the 
government  itself,  the  choice  of  his  con 
fidential  advisers,  and  the  various  ap 
pointments  to  office.  This  duty,  so 
important  and  delicate,  when  a  whole 
government  was  to  be  organized,  and  all 
its  offices  for  the  first  time  filled,  was 
yet  not  difficult  to  him;  for  he  had  no 
sinister  ends  to  accomplish,  no  clamorous 
partisans  to  gratify,  no  pledges  to  re 
deem,  no  object  to  be  regarded  but  simply 
the  public  good.  It  was  a  plain,  straight 
forward  matter,  a  mere  honest  choice  of 
good  men  for  the  public  service. 


His  own  singleness  of  purpose,  his 
disinterested  patriotism,  were  evinced 
by  the  selection  of  his  first  Cabinet,  and 
by  the  manner  in  which  he  filled  the 
seats  of  justice,  and  other  places  of  high 
trust.  ''  He  sought  for  men  fit  for  offices ; 
not  for  offices  which  might  suit  men. 
Above  personal  considerations,  above 
local  considerations,  above  party  consid 
erations,  he  felt  that  he  could  only  dis 
charge  the  Sacred  trust  which  the  country 
had  placed  in  his  hands,  by  a  diligent 
inquiry  after  real  merit,  and  a  consci 
entious  preference  of  virtue  and  talent. 
The  whole  country  was  the  field  of  his 
selection.  He  explored  that  whole  field, 
looking  only  for  whatever  it  contained 
most  worthy  and  distinguished.  He  was, 
indeed,  most  successful,  and  he  deserved 
success  for  the  purity  of  his  motives,  the 
liberality  of  his  sentiments,  and  his  en 
larged  and  manly  policy. 

Washington's  administration  estab 
lished  the  national  credit,  made  pro 
vision  for  the  public  debt,  and  for  that 
patriotic  army  whose  interests  and  wel 
fare  were  always  so  dear  to  him;  and, 
by  laws  wisely  framed,  and  of  admira 
ble  effect,  raised  the  commerce  and  nav 
igation  of  the  country,  almost  at  once, 
from  depression  and  ruin  to  a  state  of 
prosperity.  Nor  were  his  eyes  open  to 
these  interests  alone.  He  viewed  with 
equal  concern  its  agriculture  and  manu 
factures,  and,  so  far  as  they  came  within 
the  regular  exercise  of  the  powers  of 
this  government,  they  experienced  re 
gard  and  favor. 

It  should  not  be  omitted,  even  in  this 
slight  reference  to  the  general  measures 
and  general  principles  of  the  first  Presi 
dent,  that  he  saw  and  felt  the  full  value 
and  importance  of  the  judicial  depart 
ment  of  the  government.  An  upright 
and  able  administration  of  the  laws  he 
held  to  be  alike  indispensable  to  private 
happiness  and  public  liberty.  The  tem 
ple  of  justice,  in  his  opinion,  was  a 
sacred  place,  and  he  would  profane  and 
pollute  it  who  should  call  any  to  minister 
in  it,  not  spotless  in  character,  not  in 
corruptible  in  integrity,  not  competent 
by  talent  and  learning,  not  a  fit  object 
of  unhesitating  trust. 


THE    CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


345 


Among  other  admonitions,  Washing 
ton  has  left  us,  in  his  last  communi 
cation  to  his  country,  an  exhortation 
against  the  excesses  of  party  spirit.  A 
fire  not  to  be  quenched,  he  yet  conjures 
us  not  to  fan  and  feed  the  flame.  Un 
doubtedly,  Gentlemen,  it  is  the  greatest 
danger  of  our  system  and  of  our  time. 
Undoubtedly,  if  that  system  should  be 
overthrown,  it  will  be  the  work  of  ex 
cessive  party  spirit,  acting  on  the  .gov 
ernment,  which  is  dangerous  enough, 
or  acting  in  the  government,  which  is 
a  thousand  times  more  dangerous;  for 
government  then  becomes  nothing  but 
organized  party,  and,  in  the  strange 
vicissitudes  of  human  affairs,  it  may 
come  at  last,  perhaps,  to  exhibit  the 
singular  paradox  of  government  itself 
being  in  opposition  to  its  own  powers, 
at  war  with  the  very  elements  of  its  own 
existence.  Such  cases  are  hopeless.  As 
men  may  be  protected  against  murder, 
but  cannot  be  guarded  against  suicide, 
so  government  may  be  shielded  from  the 
assaults  of  external  foes,  but  nothing 
can  save  it  when  it  chooses  to  lay  violent 
hands  on  itself. 

Finally,  Gentlemen,  there  was  in  the 
breast  of  Washington  one  sentiment  so 
deeply  felt,  so  constantly  uppermost, 
that  no  proper  occasion  escaped  without 
its  utterance.  From  the  letter  which  he 
signed  in  behalf  of  the  Convention  when 
the  Constitution  was  sent  out  to  the 
people,  to  the  moment  when  he  put  his 
hand  to  that  last  paper  in  which  he 
addressed  his  countrymen,  the  Union,  — 
•»  the.  Union  was  the  great  object  of  his 
thoughts.  In  that  first  letter  he  tells 
them  that,  to  him  and  his  brethren  of 
the  Convention,  union  appears  to  be  the 
greatest  interest  of  every  true  American ; 
and  in  that  last  paper  he  conjures  them 
to  regard  that  unity  of  government 
which  constitutes  them  one  people  as 
{,<  the  very  palladium  of  their  prosperity 
and  safety,  and  the  security  of  liberty 
itself.  He  regarded  the  union  of  these 
States  less  as  one  of  our  blessings,  than 
as  the  great  treasure-house  which  con 
tained  them  all.  Here,  in  his  judgment, 
was  the  great  magazine  of  all  our  means 
of  prosperity;  here,  as  he  thought,  and 


as  every  true  American  still  thinks,  are 
deposited  all  our  animating  prospects, 
all  our  solid  hopes  for  future  greatness. 
He  has  taught  us  to  maintain  this  union, 
not  by  seeking  to  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  government,  on  the  one  hand,  nor 
by  surrendering  them,  on  the  other;  but 
by  an  administration  of  them  at  once 
firm  and  moderate,  pursuing  objects 
truly  national,  and  carried  on  in  a  spirit 
of  justice  and  equity. 
I  The  extreme  solicitude  for  the  preser-V 
vation  of  the  UnionT^at  all  times  mani 
fested  by  him,  shows  not  only  the  opin 
ion  he  entertained  of  its  importance,  but 
his  clear  perception  of  those  causes  which 
were  likely  to  spring  up  to  endanger  it, 
and  which,  if  once  they  should  over 
throw  the  present  system,  would  leave 
little  hope  of  any  future  beneficial  re 
union.  \  Of  all  the  presumptions  indulged 
by  presumptuous  man,  that  is  one  of  the 
rashest  which  looks  for  repeated  and 
favorable  opportunities  for  the  deliberate 
establishment  of  a  united  government 
over  distinct  and  widely  extended  com 
munities.  Such  a  thing  has  happened 
once  in  human  affairs,  and  but  once; 
the  event  stands  out  as  a  prominent  ex 
ception  to  all  ordinary  history ;  and  un 
less  we  suppose  ourselves  running  into 
an  age  of  miracles,  we  may  not  expect 
its  repetition. 

'  Washington,  therefore,  could  regard, 
and  did  regard,  nothing  as  of  paramount 
political  interest,  but  the  integrity  of 
the  Union  itself.  With  a  united  govern 
ment,  well  administered,  he  saw  that  we 
had  nothing  to  fear;  and  without  it, 
nothing  to  hope.  The  sentiment  is  just, 
and  its  momentous  truth  should  sol 
emnly  impress  the  whole  country.  If  we 
might  regard  our  country  as  personated 
in  the  spirit  of  Washington,  if  we  might 
consider  him  as  representing  her,  in  her 
past  renown,  her  present  prosperity,  and 
her  future  career,  and  as  in  that  charac 
ter  demanding  of  us  all  to  account  for 
our  conduct,  as  political  men  or  as  pri 
vate  citizens,  how  should  he  answer  him 
who  has  ventured  to  talk  of  disunion 
and  dismemberment?  Or  how  should 
he  answer  him  who  dwells  perpetually 
on  local  interests,  and  fans  every  kind- 


346 


THE   CHARACTER   OF   WASHINGTON. 


ling  flame  of  local  prejudice?  How 
should  he  answer  him  who  would  array 
State  against  State,  interest  against  in 
terest,  and  party  against  party,  care 
less  of  the  continuance  of  that  unity 
of  government  which  constitutes  us  one 
people  ? 

V  The  political  prosperity  which  this 
country  has  attained,  and  which  it  now 
enjoys,  has  been  acquired  mainly  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  present  gov 
ernment.  H  While  this  agent  contin 
ues,  the  capacity  of  attaining  to  still 
higher  degrees  of  prosperity  exists  also. 
We  have,  while  this  lasts,  a  political 
life  capable  of  beneficial  exertion,  with 
power  to  resist  or  overcome  misfortunes, 
to  sustain  us  against  the  ordinary  acci 
dents  of  human  affairs,  and  to  promote, 
by  active  efforts,  every  public  interest. 
But  dismemberment  strikes  at  the  very 
being  which  preserves  these  faculties. 
It  would  lay  its  rude  and  ruthless  hand 
on  this  great  agent  itself.  It  would 
sweep  away,  not  only  what  we  possess, 
but  all  power  of  regaining  lost,  or  ac 
quiring  new  possessions.  It  would  leave 
the  country,  not  only  bereft  of  its  pros 
perity  and  happiness,  but  without  limbs, 
or  organs,  or  faculties,  by  which  to  exert 
itself  hereafter  in  the  pursuit  of  that 
prosperity  and  happiness. 

Other  misfortunes  may  be  borne,  or 
their  effects  overcome.  If  disastrous 
war  should  sweep  our  commerce  from 
the  ocean,  another  generation  may  re 
new  it ;  if  it  exhaust  our  treasury,  future 
industry  may  replenish  it ;  if  it  desolate 
and  lay  waste  our  fields,  still,  under  a 
new  cultivation,  they  will  grow  green 
again,  and  ripen  to  future  harvests.  It 
were  but  a  trifle  even  if  the  walls  of 
yonder  Capitol  were  to  crumble,  if  its 
lofty  pillars  should  fall,  and  its  gor 
geous  decorations  be  all  covered  -by  the 
dust  of  the  valley.  All  these  might  be 
rebuilt.  But  who  shall  reconstruct  the 
fabric  of  demolished  government?  Who 
shall  rear  again  the  well-proportioned 
columns  of  constitutional  liberty?  Who 


shall  frame  together  the  skilful  archi 
tecture  which  unites  national  sovereignty 
with  State  rights,  individual  security, 
and  public  prosperity?  "*N"o,  if  these 
columns  fall,  they  will  be  raised  not 
again,  -^ike  the  Coliseum  and  the  Par 
thenon,  they  will  be  destined  to  a  mourn 
ful,  a  melancholy  immortality.  Bitterer 
tears,  however,  will  flow  over  them,  than 
were  ever  shed  over  the  monuments  of 
Roman  or  Grecian  art ;  for  they  will  be 
the  remnants  of  a  more  glorious  edifice 
than  Greece  or  Rome  ever  saw,  the  edi 
fice  of  constitutional  American  liberty. 

But  let  us  hope  for  better  things. 
Let  us  trust  in  that  gracious  Being  who 
has  hitherto  held  our  country  as  in  the 
hollow  of  his  hand.  Let  us  trust  to  the 
virtue  and  the  intelligence  of  the  people, 
and  to  the  efficjicy  of  religious  obliga-^ 
tion.  Let  us  trust  to  the  influence  of 
Washington's  example.  !  Let  us  hope 
that  that  fear  of  Heaven  which  expels 
all  other  fear,  and  that  regard  to  duty 
which  transcends  all  other  regard,  may  / 
influence  puBTic  men  and  private  citizens, 
and  lead  our  country  still  onward  in  her 
happy  career.'.  Full  of  these  gratifying 
anticipations  and  hopes,  let  us  look  for 
ward  to  the  end  of  that  century  which 
is  now  commenced.  A  hundred  years 
hence,  other  disciples  of  Washington 
will  celebrate  his  birth,  with  no  less  of 
sincere  admiration  than  we  now  com 
memorate  it.  Wrhen  they  shall  meet,  as 
we  now  meet,  to  do  themselves  and  him 
that  honor,  so  surely  as  they  shall  see 
the  blue  summits  of  his  native  moun 
tains  rise  in  the  horizon,  so  surely  as 
they  shall  behold  the  river  on  whose 
banks  he  lived,  and  on  whose  banks  he 
rests,  still  flowing  on  toward  the  sea,  so 
surely  may  they  see,  as  we  now  see,  the 
flag  of  the  Union  floating  on  the  top 
of  the  Capitol;  and  then,  as  now,  may 
the  sun  in  his  course  visit  no  land  more 
free,  more  happy,  more  lovely,  than  this 
our  own  country! 

Gentlemen,  I  propose —  u  THE  MEM 
ORY  OF  GEORGE  WASHINGTON." 


EXECUTIVE    PATRONAGE  AND 
FROM   OFFICE. 


REMOVALS 


FROM  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  THE  NATIONAL  REPUBLICAN  CONVENTION, 
HELD  AT  WORCESTER  (MASS.),   ON  THE  12xn  OF  OCTOBER,   1832. 


I  BEGIN,  Sir,  with  the  subject  of  re 
movals  from  office  for  opinion's  sake, 
one  of  the  most  signal  instances,  as  I 
think,  of  the  attempt  to  extend  execu 
tive  power.  This  has  been  a  leading 
measure,  a  cardinal  point,  in  the  course 
of  the  administration.  It  has  proceeded, 
from  the  first,  on  a  settled  proscription 
for  political  opinions;  and  this  system 
it  has  carried  into  operation  to  the  full 
extent  of  its  ability.  The  President 
has  not  only  filled  all  vacancies  with  his 
own  friends,  generally  those  most  distin 
guished  as  personal  partisans,  but  he 
has  turned  out  political  opponents,  and 
thus  created  vacancies,  in  order  that  he 
might  fill  them  with  his  own  friends. 
1  think  the  number  of  removals  and  ap 
pointments  is  said  to  be  two  thousand. 
While  the  administration  and  its  friends 
have  been  attempting  to  circumscribe 
and  to  decry  the  powers  belonging  to 
other  branches,  it  has  thus  seized  into 
its  own  hands  a  patronage  most  per 
nicious  and  corrupting,  an  authority 
over  men's  means  of  living  most  tyran 
nical  and  odious,  and  a  power  to  punish 
free  men  for  political  opinions  alto 
gether  intolerable. 

You  will  remember,  Sir,  that  the 
Constitution  says  not  one  word  about 
the  President's  power  of  removal  from 
office.  It  is  a  power  raised  entirely  by 
construction.  It  is  a  constructive  power, 
introduced  at  first  to  meet  cases  of  ex 
treme  public  necessity.  It  has  now  be 
come  coextensive  with  the  executive 


will,  calling  for  no  necessity,  requiring 
no  exigency  for  its  exercise ;  to  be  em 
ployed  at  all  times,  without  control, 
without  question,  without  responsibility. 
When  the  question  of  the  President's 
power  of  removal  was  debated  in  the 
first  Congress,  those  who  argued  for  it 
limited  it  to  extreme  cases.  Cases,  they 
said,  might  arise,  in  which  it  would  be 
absolutely  necessary  to  remove  an  officer 
before  the  Senate  could  be  assembled. 
An  officer  might  become  insane;  he 
might  abscond;  and  from  these  and 
other  supposable  cases,  it  was  said,  the 
public  service  might  materially  suffer  if 
the  President  could  not  remove  the  in 
cumbent.  And  it  was  further  said,  that 
there  was  little  or  no  danger  of  the 
abuse  of  the  power  for  party  or  personal 
objects.  No  President,  it  \vas  thought, 
would  ever  commit  such  an  outrage  on 
public  opinion.  Mr.  Madison,  who 
thought  the  power  ought  to  exist,  and 
to  be  exercised  in  cases  of  high  necessity, 
declared,  nevertheless,  that  if  a  Presi 
dent  should  resort  to  the  power  when 
not  required  by  any  public  exigency, 
and  merely  for  personal  objects,  he  would 
deserve  to  be  impeached.  By  a  very  small 
majority,  —  I  think,  in  the  Senate,  by 
the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice-President, 
—  Congress  decided  in  favor  of  the  ex 
istence  of  the  power  of  removal,  upon 
the  grounds  which  I  have  mentioned; 
granting  the  power  in  a  case  of  clear 
and  absolute  necessity,  and  denying  its 
existence  everywhere  else. 


348   EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE  AND  REMOVALS  FROM  OFFICE. 


Mr.  President,  we  should  recollect 
that  this  question  was  discussed,  and 
thus  decided,  when  Washington  was  in 
the  executive  chair.  Men  knew  that 
in  his  hands  the  power  would  not  be 
abused;  nor  did  they  conceive  it  pos 
sible  that  any  of  his  successors  could  so 
far  depart  from  his  great  and  bright 
example,  as,  by  abuse  of  the  power,  and 
by  carrying  that  abuse  to  its  utmost  ex 
tent,  to  change  the  essential  character 
of  the  executive  from  that  of  an  impar 
tial  guardian  and  executor  of  the  laws 
into  that  of  the  chief  dispenser  of  party 
rewards.  Three  or  four  instances  of 
removal  occurred  in  the  first  twelve  years 
of  the  government.  At  the  commence 
ment  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration, 
he  made  several  others,  not  without  pro 
ducing  much  dissatisfaction ;  so  much 
so,  that  he  thought  it  expedient  to  give 
reasons  to  the  people,  in  a  public  paper, 
for  even  the  limited  extent  to  which  he 
had  exercised  the  power.  He  rested  his 
justification  on  particular  circumstances 
and  peculiar  grounds;  which,  whether 
substantial  or  not,  showed,  at  least,  that 
he  did  not  regard  the  power  of  re 
moval  as  an  ordinary  power,  still  less  as 
a  mere  arbitrary  one,  to  be  used  as  he 
pleased,  for  whatever  ends  he  pleased, 
and  without  responsibility.  As  far  as  I 
remember,  Sir,  after  the  early  part  of 
Mr.  Jefferson's  administration,  hardly 
an  instance  occurred  for  near  thirty 
years.  Tf  there  were  any  instances, 
they  were  few.  But  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  present  administration,  the 
precedent  of  these  previous  cases  was 
seized  on,  and  a  system,  a  regular  plan 
of  government,  a  well-considered  scheme 
for  the  maintenance  of  party  power  by 
the  patronage  of  office,  and  this  pat 
ronage  to  be  created  by  general  removal, 
was  adopted,  and  has  been  carried  into 
full  operation.  Indeed,  before  General 
Jackson's  inauguration,  the  party  put 
the  system  into  practice.  In  the  last 
session  of  Mr.  Adams's  administration, 
the  friends  of  General  Jackson  consti 
tuted  a  majority  in  the  Senate;  and 
nominations,  made  by  Mr.  Adams  to 
fill  vacancies  which  had  occurred  in  the 
ordinary  way,  were  postponed,  by  this 


majority,  beyond  the  3d  of  March,  for 
the  purpose,  openly  avowed,  of  giving  the 
nominations  to  General  Jackson.  A 
nomination  for  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  many  others  of  less  magni 
tude,  were  thus  disposed  of. 

And  what  did  we  witness,  Sir,  when 
the  administration  actually  commenced, 
in  the  full  exercise  of  its  authority  ? 
One  universal  sweep,  one  undistin- 
guishing  blow,  levelled  against  all  who 
were  not  of  the  successful  party.  No 
worth,  public  or  private,  no  service,  civil 
or  military,  was  of  power  to  resist  the 
relentless  greediness  of  proscription. 
Soldiers  of  the  late  war,  soldiers  of  the 
Revolutionary  war,  the  very  contem 
poraries  of  the  independence  of  the 
country,  all  lost  their  situations.  No 
office  was  too  high,  and  non£  too  low; 
for  office  was  the  spoil,  and  "  all  the 
spoils,"  it  is  said,  ''belong  to  the  vic 
tors  "  !  If  a  man  holding  an  office  neces 
sary  for  his  daily  support  had  present 
ed  himself  covered  with  the  scars  of 
wounds  received  in  every  battle,  from 
Bunker  Hill  to  Yorktown,  these  would 
not  have  protected  him  against  this  reck 
less  rapacity.  Nay,  Sir,  if  Warren  him 
self  had  been  among  the  living,  and 
had  possessed  any  office  under  govern 
ment,  high  or  low,  he  would  not  have 
been  suffered  to  hold  it  a  single  hour, 
unless  he  could  show  that  he  had  strictly 
complied  with  the  party  statutes,  and 
had  put  a  well-marked  party  collar 
round  his  own  neck.  Look,  Sir,  to  the 
case  of  the  late  venerable  Major  Melville. 
He  was  a  personification  of  the  spirit 
of  1776,  one  of  the  earliest  to  venture 
in  the  cause  of  liberty.  He  was  of  the 
Tea  Party ;  one  of  the  very  first  to  ex 
pose  himself  to  British  power.  And  his 
whole  life  was  consonant  with  this,  its 
beginning.  Always  ardent  in  the  cause 
of  liberty,  always  a  zealous  friend  to  his 
country,  always  acting  with  the  party 
which  he  supposed  cherished  the  genuine 
republican  spirit  most  fervently,  always 
estimable  and  respectable  in  private  life, 
he  seemed  armed  against  this  miserable 
petty  tyranny  of  party  as  far  as  man 
could  be.  But  he  felt  its  blow,  and  he 
fell.  lie  held  an  office  in  the  custom- 


EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE  AND  REMOVALS  FROM  OFFICE.         349 


house,  and  had  held  it  for  a  long  course 
of  years;  and  he  was  deprived  of  it,  as 
if  unworthy  to  serve  the  country  which 
he  loved,  and  for  whose  liberties,  in  the 
vigor  of  his  early  manhood,  he  had 
thrust  himself  into  the  very  jaws  of  its 
enemies.  There  was  no  mistake  in  the 
matter.  His  character,  his  standing, 
his  Revolutionary  services,  were  all 
well  known  ;  but  they  were  known  to  110 
purpose ;  they  weighed  not  one  feather 
against  party  pretensions.  It  cost  no 
pains  to  remove  him;  it  cost  no  com 
punction  to  wring  his  aged  heart  with 
this  retribution  from  his  country  for  his 
services,  his  zeal,  and  his  fidelity.  Sir, 
you  will  bear  witness,1  that,  when  his 
successor  was  nominated  to  the  Senate, 
and  the  Senate  were  informed  who  had 
been  removed  to  make  way  for  that  nom 
ination,  its  members  were  struck  with 
horror.  They  had  not  conceived  the  ad 
ministration  to  be  capable  of  such  a 
thing ;  and  yet  they  said,  What  can  we  do? 
The  man  is  removed ;  we  cannot  recall 
him ;  wre  can  only  act  upon  the  nomina 
tion  before  us.  Sir,  you  and  I  thought 
otherwise;  and  I  rejoice  that  we  did 
think  otherwise.  We  thought  it  our  duty 
to  resist  the  nomination  to  fill  a  vacancy 
thus  created.  We  thought  it  our  duty 
to  oppose  this  proscription,  when,  and 
where,  and  as,  we  constitutionally  could. 
We  besought  the  Senate  to  go  with  us, 
and  to  take  a  stand  before  the  country  on 
this  great  question.  We  invoked  them 
to  try  the  deliberate  sense  of  the  people; 
to  trust  themselves  before  the  tribunal  of 
public  opinion ;  to  resist  at  first,  to  resist 
at  last,  to  resist  always,  the  introduction 
of  this  unsocial,  this  mischievous,  this 
dangerous,  this  belligerent  principle  into 
the  practice  of  the  government. 

Mr.  President,  as  far  as  I  know,  there 
is  no  civilized  country  on  earth,  in 
which,  on  a  change  of  rulers,  there  is 
such  an  inquisition  for  spoil  as  we  have 
witnessed  in  this  free  republic.  The 
Inaugural  Address  of  1829  spoke  of  a 
searching  operation  of  government.  The 
most  searching  operation,  Sir,  of  the 

1  Hon.  Nathaniel  Silsbee,  President  of  the 
Convention,  was  Mr.  Webster's  colleague  in  the 
Senate  at  the  time  referred  to. 


present  administration,  has  been  its 
search  for  office  and  place.  When,  Sir, 
did  any  English  minister,  Whig  or 
Tory,  ever  make  such  an  inquest? 
When  did  he  ever  go  down  to  low- 
water  mark,  to  make  an  ousting  of 
tide-waiters?  When  did  he  ever  take 
away  the  daily  bread  of  weighers,  and 
gangers,  and  measurers?  When  did  he 
ever  go  into  the  villages,  to  disturb  the 
little  post-offices,  the  mail  contracts,  and 
every  thing  else  in  the  remotest  degree 
connected  with  government?  Sir,  a 
British  minister  who  should  do  this, 
and  should  afterwards  show  his  head  in 
a  British  House  of  Commons,  would  be 
received  by  a  universal  hiss. 

I  have  little  to  say  of  the  selections 
made  to  fill  vacancies  thus  created.  It 
is  true,  however,  and  it  is  a  natural 
consequence  of  the  system  which  has 
been  acted  on,  that,  within  the  last 
three  years,  more  nominations  have 
been  rejected  on  the  ground  of  unfitness, 
than  in  all  the  preceding  forty  years  of 
the  government.  And  these  nomina 
tions,  you  know,  Sir,  could  not  have 
been  rejected  but  by  votes  of  the 
President's  own  friends.  The  cases 
were  too  strong  to  be  resisted.  Even 
party  attachment  could  not  stand  them. 
In  some  not  a  third  of  the  Senate,  in 
others  not  ten  votes,  and  in  others  not  a 
single  vote,  could  be  obtained;  and  this 
for  no  particular  reason  known  only  to 
the  Senate,  but  on  general  grounds  of 
the  want  of  character  and  qualifications; 
on  grounds  known  to  everybody  else,  as 
\vell  as  to  the  Senate.  All  this,  Sir, 
is  perfectly  natural  and  consistent.  The 
same  party  selfishness  which  drives  good 
men  out  of  office  will  push  bad  men  in. 
Political  proscription  leads  necessarily  to 
the  filling  of  offices  with  incompetent 
persons,  and  to  a  consequent  malexecu- 
tion  of  official  duties.  And  in  my  opin 
ion,  Sir,  this  principle  of  claiming  a 
monopoly  of  office  by  the  right  of  con 
quest,  unless  the  public  shall  effectually 
rebuke  and  restrain  it,  will  entirely 
change  the  character  of  our  government. 
It  elevates  party  above  country;  it  for 
gets  the  common  weal  in  the  pursuit  of 
personal  emolument;  it  tends  to  form, 


350        EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE  AND  REMOVALS  FROM  OFFICE. 


it  does  form,  we  see  that  it  has  formed, 
a  political  combination,  united  by  no 
common  principles  or  opinions  among 
its  members,  either  upon  the  powers  of 
the  government,  or  the  true  policy  of 
the  country;  but  held  together  simply 
as  an  association,  under  the  charm  of  a 
popular  head,  seeking  to  maintain  pos 
session  of  the  government  by  a  vigorous 
exercise  of  its  patronage;  and  for  this 
purpose  agitating,  and  alarming,  and 
distressing  social  life  by  the  exercise  of 
a  tyrannical  party  proscription.  Sir,  if 
this  course  of  things  cannot  be  checked, 
good  men  will  grow  tired  of  the  exercise 
of  political  privileges.  They  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  popular  elections. 
They  will  see  that  such  elections  are  but 
a  mere  selfish  contest  for  office;  and 
they  will  abandon  the  government  to 
the  scramble  of  the  bold,  the  daring, 
and  the  desperate. 

It  seems,  Mr.  President,  to  be  a  pe 
culiar  and  singular  characteristic  of  the 
present  administration,  that  it  came 
into  power  on  a  cry  against  abuses, 
which  did  not  exist,  and  then,  as  soon  as 
it  was  in,  as  if  in  mockery  of  the  per 
ception  and  intelligence  of  the  people, 
it  created  those  very  abuses,  and  carried 
them  to  a  great  length.  Thus  the  chief 
magistrate  himself,  before  he  came  into 
the  chair,  in  a  formal  public  paper, 
denounced  the  practice  of  appointing 
members  of  Congress  to  office.  He  said, 
that,  if  that  practice  continued,  corrup 
tion  would  become  the  order  of  the  day ; 
and,  as  if  to  fasten  and  nail  down  his 
own  consistency  to  that  point,  he  de 
clared  that  it  was  due  to  himself  to  prac 
tise  what  he  recommended  to  others.  Yet, 
Sir,  as  soon  as  he  was  in  power,  these 
fastenings  gave  way,  the  nails  all  flew, 
and  the  promised  consistency  remains  a 
striking  proof  of  the  manner  in  which 
political  assurances  are  sometimes  ful 
filled.  He  has  already  appointed  more 
members  of  Congress  to  office  than  any 
of  his  predecessors,  in  the  longest  period 
of  administration.  Before  his  time, 
there  was  no  reason  to  complain  of  these 
appointments.  They  had  not  been  nu 
merous  under  any  administration.  Un 
der  this,  they  have  been  numerous,  and 


some  of  them  such  as  may  well  justify 
complaint. 

Another  striking  instance  of  the  ex 
hibition  of  the  same  characteristics  may 
be  found  in  the  sentiments  of  the  Inau 
gural  Address,  and  in  the  subsequent 
practice,  on  the  subject  of  interfering 
ivith  the  freedom  of  elections.  The  Inau 
gural  Address  declares,  that  it  is  neces 
sary  to  reform  abuses  which  have  brought 
the  patronage  of  the  government  into  con 
flict  with  the  freedom  of  elections.  And 
what  has  been  the  subsequent  practice? 
Look  to  the  newspapers;  look  to  the 
published  letters  of  officers  of  the  gov 
ernment,  advising,  exhorting,  soliciting, 
friends  and  partisans  to  greater  exer 
tions  in  the  cause  of  the  party;  see  all 
done,  everywhere,  which  patronage  and 
power  can  do,  to  affect,  not  only  elec 
tions  in  the  general  government,  but 
also  in  every  State  government,  and 
then  say  how  well  this  promise  of  re 
forming  abuses  has  been  kept.  At  what 
former  period,  under  what  former  ad 
ministration,  did  public  officers  of  the 
United  States  thus  interfere  in  elections? 
Certainly,  Sir,  never.  In  this  respect, 
then,  as  well  as  in  others,  that  which 
was  not  true  as  a  charge  against  previous 
administrations  would  have  been  true, 
if  it  had  assumed  the  form  of  a  proph 
ecy  respecting  the  acts  of  the  present. 

But  there  is  another  attempt  to  grasp 
and  to  wield  a  power  over  public  opin 
ion,  of  a  still  more  daring  character,  and 
far  more  dangerous  effects. 

In  all  popular  governments,  a  FREE 
PRESS  is  the  most  important  of  all 
agents  and  instruments.  It  not  only 
expresses  public  opinion,  but,  to  a  very 
great  degree,  it  contributes  to  form 
that  opinion.  It  is  an  engine  for  good 
or  for  evil,  as  it  may  be  directed;  but 
an  engine  of  which  nothkig  can  resist 
the  force.  The  conductors  of  the  press, 
in  popular  governments,  occupy  a  place, 
in  the  social  and  political  system,  of  the 
very  highest  consequence.  They  wear 
the  character  of  public  instructors. 
Their  daily  labors  bear  directly  on  the 
intelligence,  the  morals,  the  taste,  and 
the  public  spirit  of  the  country.  Not 


EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE  AND  REMOVALS  FROM  OFFICE.        351 


only  are  they  journalists,  recording 
political  occurrences,  but  they  discuss 
principles,  they  comment  on  measures, 
they  canvass  characters;  they  hold  a 
power  over  the  reputation,  the  feelings, 
the  happiness  of  individuals.  The  pub 
lic  ear  is  always  open  to  their  addresses, 
the  public  sympathy  easily  made  respon 
sive  to  their  sentiments.  It  is  indeed, 
Sir,  a  distinction  of  high  honor,  that 
theirs  is  the  only  profession  expressly 
protected  and  guarded  by  constitutional 
enactments.  Their  employment  soars 
so  high,  in  its  general  consequences  it  is 
so  intimately  connected  with  the  public 
happiness,  that  its  security  is  provided 
for  by  the  fundamental  law.  While  it 
acts  in  a  manner  worthy  of  this  distinc 
tion,  the  press  is  a  fountain  of  light, 
and  a  source  of  gladdening  warmth.  It 
instructs  the  public  mind,  and  animates 
the  spirit  of  patriotism.  Its  loud  voice 
suppresses  every  thing  which  would  raise 
itself  against  the  public  liberty;  and  its 
blasting  rebuke  causes  incipient  despot 
ism  to  perish  in  the  bud. 

But  remember,  Sir,  that  these  are  the 
attributes  of  a  FREE  press  only.  And 
is  a  press  that  is  purchased  or  pensioned 
more  free  than  a  press  that  is  fettered? 
Can  the  people  look  for  truths  to  par 
tial  sources,  whether  rendered  partial 
through  fear  or  through  favor?  Why 
shall  not  a  manacled  press  be  trusted 
with  the  maintenance  and  defence  of 
popular  rights?  Because  it  is  supposed 
to  be  under  the  influence  of  a  power 
which  may  prove  greater  than  the  love 
of  truth.  Such  a  press  may  screen 
abuses  in  government,  or  be  silent.  It 
may  fear  to  speak.  And  may  it  not 
fear  to  speak,  too,  when  its  conductors, 
if  they  speak  in  any  but  one  way,  may 
lose  their  means  of  livelihood?  Is  de 
pendence  on  government  for  bread  no 
temptation  to  screen  its  abuses?  Will 
the  press  always  speak  the  truth,  when 
the  truth,  if  spoken,  may  be  the  means 
of  silencing  it  for  the  future?  Is  the 
truth  in  no  danger,  is  the  watchman 
under  no  temptation,  when  he  can  nei 
ther  proclaim  the  approach  of  national 
evils,  nor  seem  to  descry  them,  without 
the  loss  of  his  place? 


Mr.  President,  an  open  attempt  to 
secure  the  aid  and  friendship  of  the 
public  press,  by  bestowing  the  emolu 
ments  of  office  on  its  active  conductors, 
seems  to  me,  of  every  thing  we  have 
witnessed,  to  be  the  most  reprehensible. 
It  degrades  both  the  government  and 
the  press.  As  far  as  its  natural  effect 
extends,  it  turns  the  palladium  of  liberty 
into  an  engine  of  party.  It  brings  the 
agency,  activity,  energy,  and  patronage 
of  government  all  to  bear,  with  united 
force,  on  the  means  of  general  intelli 
gence,  and  on  the  adoption  or  rejection 
of  political  opinions.  It  so  completely 
perverts  the  true  object  of  government, 
it  so  entirely  revolutionizes  our  whole 
system,  that  the  chief  business  of  those 
in  power  is  directed  rather  to  the  propa 
gation  of  opinions  favorable  to  them 
selves,  than  to  the  execution  of  the  laws. 
This  propagation  of  opinions,  through 
the  press,  becomes  the  main  administra 
tive  duty.  Some  fifty  or  sixty  editors 
of  leading  journals  have  been  appointed 
to  office  by  the  present  executive.  A 
stand  has  been  made  against  this  pro 
ceeding,  in  the  Senate,  with  partial  suc 
cess;  but,  by  means  of  appointments 
which  do  not  come  before  the  Senate,  or 
other  means,  the  number  has  been  car 
ried  to  the  extent  I  have  mentioned. 
Certainly,  Sir,  the  editors  of  the  public 
journals  are  not  to  be  disfranchised. 
Certainly  they  are  fair  candidates,  either 
for  popular  elections,  or  a  just  participa 
tion  in  office.  Certainly  they  reckon  in 
their  number  some  of  the  first  geniuses, 
the  best  scholars,  and  the  most  honest 
and  well-principled  men  in  the  country. 
But  the  complaint  is  against  the  system, 
against  the  practice,  against  the  undis 
guised  attempt  to  secure  the  favor  of 
the  press  by  means  addressed  to  its 
pecuniary  interest,  and  these  means, 
too,  drawn  from  the  public  treasury, 
being  no  other  than  the  appointed  com 
pensations  for  the  performance  of  official 
duties.  Sir,  the  press  itself  should  re 
sent  this.  Its  own  character  for  purity 
and  independence  is  at  stake.  It  should 
resist  a  connection  rendering  it  obnox 
ious  to  so  many  imputations.  It  should 
point  to  its  honorable  denomination  in 


352       EXECUTIVE   PATRONAGE  AND   REMOVALS   FROM   OFFICE. 


our  constitutions  of  government,  and  it 
should  maintain  the  character,  there  as 
cribed  to  it,  of  a  FREE  PRESS. 

There  can,  Sir,  be  no  objection  to  the 
appointment  of  an  editor  to  office,  if  he 
is  the  fittest  man.  There  can  be  no  ob 
jection  to  considering  the  services  which, 
in  that  or  in  any  other  capacity,  he  may 
have  rendered  his  country.  He  may 
have  done  much  to  maintain  her  rights 
against  foreign  aggression,  and  her  char 
acter  against  insult.  He  may  have  hon 
ored,  as  well  as  defended  her;  and  may, 
therefore,  be  justly  regarded  and  se 
lected,  in  the  choice  of  faithful  public 
agents.  But  the  ground  of  complaint 
is,  that  the  aiding,  by  the  press,  of  the 
election  of  an  individual,  is  rewarded,  by 
that  same  individual,  with  the  gift  of 
moneyed  offices.  Men  are  turned  out 
of  office,  and  others  put  in,  and  receive 
salaries  from  the  public  treasury,  on  the 
ground,  either  openly  avowed  or  falsely 
denied,  that  they  have  rendered  service 
in  the  election  of  the  very  individual 
who  makes  this  removal  and  makes  this 
appointment.  Everyman,  Sir,  must  see 
that  this  is  a  vital  stab  at  the  purity  of 
the  press.  It  not  only  assails  its  inde 
pendence,  by  addressing  sinister  motives 
to  it,  but  it  furnishes  from  the  public 


treasury  the  means  of  exciting  these  mo 
tives.  It  extends  the  executive  power 
over  thq»press  in  a  most  daring  manner. 
It  operates  to  give  a  direction  to  opinion, 
not  favorable  to  the  government,  in  the 
aggregate ;  not  favorable  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws;  not  favorable  to  the 
legislature ;  but  favorable  to  the  execu 
tive  alone.  The  consequence  often  is, 
just  what  might  be  looked  for,  that  the 
portion  of  the  press  thus  made  fast  to 
the  executive  interest  denounces  Con 
gress,  denounces  the  judiciary,  com 
plains  of  the  laws,  and  quarrels  with 
the  Constitution.  This  exercise  of  the 
right  of  appointment  to  this  end  is  an 
augmentation,  and  a  vast  one,  of  the 
executive  power,  singly  and  alone.  It 
uses  that  power  strongly  against  all 
other  branches  of  the  government,  and 
it  uses  it  strongly,  too,  for  any  struggle 
which  it  may  be  called  on  to  make  with 
the  public  opinion  of  the  country.  Mr. 
President,  I  will  quit  this  topic.  There 
is  much  in  it,  in  my  judgment,  affect 
ing,  not  only  the  purity  and  independ 
ence  of  the  press,  but  also  the  character 
and  honor,  the  peace  and  security,  of 
the  government.  I  leave  it,  in  all  its 
bearings,  to  the  consideration  of  the 
people. 


EXECUTIVE  -USURPATION. 


FROM    THE    SAME    SPEECH    AT    WORCESTER. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  the  executive  has  not 
only  used  these  unaccustomed  means  to 
prevent  the  passage  of  laws,  but  it  has  also 
refused  to  enforce  the  execution  of  laws 
actually  passed.  An  eminent  instance 
of  this  is  found  in  the  course  adopted 
relative  to  the  Indian  intercourse  law  of 
1802.  Upon  being  applied  to,  in  behalf  of 
the  MISSIONARIES,  to, execute  that  law, 
for  their  relief  and  protection,  the  Presi 
dent  replied,  that  the  State  of  Georgia 
having  extended  her  laws  over  the  Indian 
territory,  the  laws  of  Congress  had  thereby 
been  superseded.  This  is  the  substance 
of  his  answer,  as  communicated  through 
the  Secretary  of  War.  He  holds,  then, 
that  the  law  of  the  State  is  paramount 
to  the  law  of  Congress.  The  Supreme 
Court  has  adjudged  this  act  of  Georgia 
to  be  void,  as  being  repugnant  to  a  con 
stitutional  law  of  the  United  States. 
But  the  President  pays  no  more  regard 
to  this  decision  than  to  the  act  of  Con 
gress  itself.  The  missionaries  remain 
in  prison,  held  there  by  a  condemnation 
under  a  law  of  a  State  which  the  su 
preme  judicial  tribunal  has  pronounced 
to  be  null  and  void.  The  Supreme  Court 
have  decided  that  the  act  of  Congress  is 
constitutional;  that  it  is  a  binding  stat 
ute  ;  that  it  has  the  same  force  as  other 
laws,  and  is  as  much  entitled  to  be 
obeyed  and  executed  as  other  laws. 
The  President,  on  the  contrary,  declares 
that  the  law  of  Congress  has  been  super 
seded  by  the  law  of  the  State,  and  there 
fore  he  will  not  carry  its  provisions  into 
effect.  Now  we  know,  Sir,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  de- 


23 


clares,  that  that  Constitution,  and  all 
acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance 
of  it,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  any  thing  in  any  State  law  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  This  would 
seem  to  be  a  plain  case,  then,  in  which 
the  law  should  be  executed.  It  has 
been  solemnly  decided  to  be  in  actual 
force,  by  the  highest  judicial  authority; 
its  execution  is  demanded  for  the  relief 
of  free  citizens,  now  suffering  the  pains 
of  unjust  and  unlawful  imprisonment; 
yet  the  President  refuses  to  execute  it. 

In  the-  case  of  the  Chicago  Road, 
some  sessions  ago,  the  President  ap 
proved  the  bill,  but  accompanied  his 
approval  by  a  message,  saying  how  far 
he  deemed  it  a  proper  law,  and  how 
far,  therefore,  it  ought  to  be  carried  into 
execution. 

In  the  case  of  the  harbor  bill  of  the 
late  session,  being  applied  to  by  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  for  directions  for  carry 
ing  parts  of  the  law  into  effect,  he 
declined  giving  them,  and  made  a  dis 
tinction  between  such  parts  of  the  law 
as  he  should  cause  to  be  executed,  and 
such  as  he  should  not;  and  his  right  to 
make  this  distinction  has  been  openly 
maintained,  by  those  who  habitually 
defend  his  measures.  Indeed,  Sir,  these, 
and  other  instances  of  liberties  taken  with 
plain  statute  laws,  flow  naturally  from 
the  principles  expressly  avowed  by  the 
President,  under  his  own  hand.  In  that 
important  document,  Sir,  upon  which  it 
seems  to  be  his  fate  to  stand  or  to  fall 
before  the  American  people,  the  veto  mes 
sage,  he  holds  the  following  language: 


354 


EXECUTIVE  USURPATION. 


14  Each  public  officer  who  takes  an  oath 
to  support  the  Constitution,  swears  that 
he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it, 
and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others." 
Mr.  President,  the  general  adoption  of 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  this  sentence 
would  dissolve  our  government.  It  would 
raise  every  man's  private  opinions  into 
a  standard  for  his  own  conduct;  and 
there  certainly  is,  there  can  be,  no  gov 
ernment,  where  every  man  is  to  judge 
for  himself  of  his  own  rights  and  his 
own  obligations.  Where  every  one  is 
his  own  arbiter,  force,  and  not  law,  is 
the  governing  power.  He  who  may 
judge  for  himself,  and  decide  for  him 
self,  must  execute  his  own  decisions; 
and  this  is  the  law  of  force.  I  confess, 
Sir,  it  strikes  me  with  astonishment,  that 
so  wild,  so  disorganizing,  a  sentiment 
should  be  uttered  by  a  President  of  the 
United  States.  I  should  think  it  must 
have  escaped  from  its  author  through 
want  of  reflection,  or  from  the  habit  of 
little  reflection  on  such  subjects,  if  I 
could  suppose  it  possible,  that,  on  a 
question  exciting  so  much  public  atten 
tion,  and  of  so  much  national  impor 
tance,  any  such  extraordinary  doctrine 
could  find  its  way,  through  inadvertence, 
into  a  formal  and  solemn  public  act. 
Standing  as  it  does,  it  affirms  a  proposi 
tion  which  would  effectually  repeal  all 
constitutional  and  all  legal  obligations. 
The  Constitution  declares,  that  every 
public  officer,  in  the  State  governments 
as  well  as  in  the  general  government, 
shall  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  This  is 
all.  Would  it  not  have  cast  an  air  of 
ridicule  on  the  whole  provision,  if  the 
Constitution  had  gone  on  to  add  the 
words,  u  as  he  understands  it  "?  WThat 
could  come  nearer  to  a  solemn  farce, 
than  to  bind  a  man  by  oath,  and  still 
leave  him  to  be  his  own  interpreter  of 
his  own  obligation?  Sir,  those  who  are 
to  execute  the  laws  have  no  more  a 
license  to  construe  them  for  themselves, 
than  those  whose  only  duty  is  to  obey 
them.  Public  officers  are  bound  to  sup 
port  the  Constitution ;  private  citizens 
are  bound  to  obey  it;  and  there  is  no 
more  indulgence  granted  to  the  public 


officer  to  support  the  Constitution  only 
as  he  understands  it,  than  to  a  private 
citizen  to  obey  it  only  as  he  understands 
it;  ancf  what  is  true  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  in  this  respect,  is  equally  true  of 
any  law.  Laws  are  to  be  executed,  and 
to  be  obeyed,  not  as  individuals  may  in 
terpret  them,  but  according  to  public, 
authoritative  interpretation  and  adjudi 
cation.  The  sentiment  of  the  message 
would  abrogate  the  obligation  of  the 
whole  criminal  code.  If  every  man  is 
to  judge  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws  for  himself,  if  he  is  to  obey  and 
support  them  only  as  he  may  say  he 
understands  them,  a  revolution,  I  think, 
would  take  place  in  the  administration 
of  justice;  and  discussions  about  the  law 
of  treason,  murder,  and  arson  should  be 
addressed,  not  to  the  judicial  bench,  but 
to  those  who  might  stand  charged  with 
such  offences.  The  object  of  discussion 
should  be,  if  we  run  out  this  notion  to 
its  natural  extent,  to  enlighten  the  cul 
prit  himself  how  he  ought  to  understand 
the  law. 

Mr.  President,  how  is  it  possible  that 
a  sentiment  so  wild,  and  so  dangerous, 
so  encouraging  to  all  who  feel  a  desire 
to  oppose  the  laws,  and  to  impair  the 
Constitution,  should  have  been  uttered 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
at  this  eventful  and  critical  moment? 
Are  we  not  threatened  with  dissolution 
of  the  Union?  Are  we  not  told  that 
the  laws  of  the  government  shall  be 
openly  and  directly  resisted?  Is  not  the 
whole  country  looking,  with  the  utmost 
anxiety,  to  what  may  be  the  result  of 
these  threatened  courses?  And  at  this 
very  moment,  so  full  of  peril  to  the 
state,  the  chief  magistrate  puts  forth 
opinions  and  sentiments  as  truly  sub 
versive  of  all  government,  as  absolutely 
in  conflict  with  the  authority  of  the 
Constitution,  as  the  wildest  theories  of 
nullification.  Mr.  President,  I  have 
very  little  regard  for  the  law,  or  the 
logic,  of  nullification.  But  there  is  not 
an  individual  in  its  ranks,  capable  of 
putting  two  ideas  together,  who,  if  you 
will  grant  him  the  principles  of  the  veto 
message,  cannot  defend  all  that  nullifi 
cation  has  ever  threatened. 


EXECUTIVE   USURPATION. 


355 


To  make  this  assertion  good,  Sir,  let 
us  see  how  the  case  stands.  The  Legis 
lature  of  South  Carolina,  it  is  said,  will 
nullify  the  late  revenue  or  tariff  law, 
because,  they  say,  it  is  not  warranted  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as 
they  understand  the  Constitution.  They, 
as  well  as  the  President  of  the  United' 
States,  have  sworn  to  support  the  Con 
stitution.  Both  he  and  they  have  taken 
the  same  oath,  in  the  same  words. 
Now,  Sir,  since  he  claims  the  right  to 
interpret  the  Constitution  as  he  pleases, 
how  can  he  deny  the  same  right  to 
them?  Is  his  oath  less  stringent  than 
theirs?  Has  he  a  prerogative  of  dis 
pensation  which  they  do  not  possess? 
How  can  he  answer  them,  when  they 
tell  him,  that  the  revenue  laws  are 
unconstitutional,  as  they  understand  the 
Constitution,  and  that  therefore  they 
will  nullify  them?  Will  he  reply  to 
them,  according  to  the  doctrines  of  his 
annual  message  in  1830,  that  precedent 
has  settled  the  question,  if  it  was  ever 
doubtful?  They  will  answer  him  in  his 
own  words  in  the  veto  message,  that,  in 
such  a  case,  precedent  is  not  binding. 
"Will  he  say  to  them,  that  the  revenue 
law  is  a  law  of  Congress,  which  must 
be  executed  until  it  shall  be  declared 
void?  They  will  answer  him,  that,  in 
other  cases,  he  has  himself  refused  to 
execute  laws  of  Congress  which  had  not 
been  declared  void,  but  which  had  been, 
on  the  contrary,  declared  valid.  Will 
he  urge  the  force  of  judicial  decisions?' 
They  will  answer,  that  he  himself  does 
not  admit  the  binding  obligation  of 
such  decisions.  Sir,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is  of  opinion,  that  an 
individual,  called  on  to  execute  a  law, 
may  himself  judge  of  its  constitutional 
validity.  Does  nullification  teach  any 
thing  more  revolutionary  than  that? 
The  President  is  of  opinion,  that  judi 
cial  interpretations  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  do  not  bind  the  con 
sciences,  and  ought  not  to  bind  the 
conduct,  of  men.  Is  nullification  at  all 
more  disorganizing  than  that?  The 
President  is  o£  opinion,  that  every  of 
ficer  is  bound  to  support  the  Constitu 
tion  only  according  to  what  ought  to  be, 


in  his  private  opinion,  its  construction. 
Has  nullification,  in  its  wildest  flight, 
ever  reached  to  an  extravagance  like 
that?  No,  Sir,  never.  The  doctrine  of 
nullification,  in  my  judgment  a  most 
false,  dangerous,  and  revolutionary  doc 
trine,  is  this:  that  the  State,  or  a  State, 
may  declare  the  extent  of  the  obliga 
tions  which  its  citizens  are  under  to  the 
United  States;  in  other  words,  that  a 
State,  by  State  laws  and  State  judica 
tures,  may  conclusively  construe  the 
Constitution  for  its  own  citizens.  But 
that  every  individual  may  construe  it 
for  himself  is  a  refinement  on  the  theory 
of  resistance  to  constitutional  power,  a 
sublimation  of  the  right  of  being  dis 
loyal  to  the  Union,  a  free  charter  for  the 
elevation  of  private  opinion  above  the 
authority  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  state,  such  as  was  never  presented 
to  the  public  view,  and  the  public  aston 
ishment,  even  by  nullification  itself.  Its 
first  appearance  is  in  the  veto  message. 
Melancholy,  lamentable,  indeed,  Sir,  is 
our  condition,  when,  at  a  moment  of 
serious  danger  and  wide-spread  alarm, 
such  sentiments  are  found  to  proceed 
from  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  govern 
ment.  Sir,  I  cannot  feel  that  the  Con 
stitution  is  safe  in  such  hands.  I  can 
not  feel  that  the  present  administration 
is  its  fit  and  proper  guardian. 

But  let  me  ask,  Sir,  what  evidence 
there  is,  that  the  President  is  himself 
opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  nullification : 
I  do  not  say  to  the  political  party  which 
now  pushes  these  doctrines,  but  to  the 
doctrines  themselves.  Has  he  anywhere 
rebuked  them?  Has  he  anywhere  dis 
couraged  them?  Has  his  influence  been 
exerted  to  inspire  respect  for  the  Con 
stitution,  and  to  produce  obedience  to 
the  laws?  Has  he  followed  the  bright 
example  of  his  predecessors?  Has  he 
held  fast  by  the  institutions  of  the  coun 
try?  Has  he  summoned  the  good  and 
the  wise  around  him  ?  Has  he  admon 
ished  the  country  that  the  Union  is  in 
danger,  and  called  on  all  the  patriotic 
to  come  out  in  its  support?  Alas!  Sir, 
we  have  seen  nothing,  nothing,  of  all 
this. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  discuss  the 


356 


EXECUTIVE   USURPATION. 


doctrine  of  nullification.  T  am  sure  it 
can  have  no  friends  here.  Gloss  it  and 
disguise  it  as  we  may,  it  is  a  pretence 
incompatible  with  the  authority  of  the 
Constitution.  If  direct  separation  be 
not  its  only  mode  of  operation,  separa 
tion  is,  nevertheless,  its  direct  conse 
quence.  That  a  State  may  nullify  a 
law  of  the  Union,  and  still  remain  in 
the  Union ;  that  she  may  have  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  the  government, 
and  yet  be  at  liberty  to  disobey  and 
resist  that  government;  that  she  may 
partake  in  the  common  councils,  and  yet 
not  be  bound  by  their  results;  that  she 
may  control  a  law  of  Congress,  so  that  it 
shall  be  one  thing  with  her,  while  it  is 
another  thing  with  the  rest  of  the  States; 
—  all  these  propositions  seem  to  me  so 
absolutely  at  war  with  common  sense 
and  reason,  that  I  do  not  understand 
how  any  intelligent  person  can  yield  the 
slightest  assent  to  them.  Nullification, 
it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  conceal  it,  is 
dissolution;  it  is  dismemberment;  it  is 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Union.  If  it 
shall  practically  succeed  in  any  one 
State,  from  that  moment  there  are 
twenty-four  States  in  the  Union  no 
longer.  Now,  Sir,  I  think  it  exceed 
ingly  probable  that  the  President  may 
come  to  an  open  rupture  with  that  por 
tion  of  his  original  party  which  now 
constitutes  what  is  called  the  Nullifica 
tion  party.  I  think  it  likely  he  will 
oppose  the  proceedings  of  that  party,  if 
they  shall  adopt  measures  coming  di 
rectly  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the 
United  States.  But  how  will  he  op 
pose?  What  will  be  his  course  of 
remedy?  Sir,  I  wish  to  call  the  atten 
tion  of  the  Convention,  and  of  the  peo 
ple,  earnestly  to  this  question, —  How 
will  the  President  attempt  to  put  down 
nullification,  if  he  shall  attempt  it  at 
all? 

Sir,  for  one,  I  protest  in  advance 
against  such  remedies  as  I  have  heard 
hinted.  The  administration  itself  keeps 
a  profound  silence,  but  its  friends  have 
spoken  for  it.  We  are  told,  Sir,  that 
the  President  will  immediately  employ 
the  military  force,  and  at  once  block 
ade  Charleston !  A  military  remedy,  a 


remedy  by  direct  belligerent  operation, 
has  been  thus  suggested,  and  nothing 
else  has  Jpeen  suggested,  as  the  intended 
means  of  preserving  the  Union.  Sir, 
there  is  no  little  reason  to  think,  that 
this  suggestion  is  true.  We  cannot  be 
altogether  unmindful  of  the  past,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  be  altogether  unap 
prehensive  for  the  future.  For  one,  Sir. 
I  raise  my  voice  beforehand  against  the 
unauthorized  employment  of  military 
power,  and  against  superseding  the  au 
thority  of  the  laws,  by  an  armed  force, 
under  pretence  of  putting  down  nullifi 
cation.  The  President  has  no  authority 
to  blockade  Charleston ;  the  President 
has  no  authority  to  employ  military 
force,  till  he  shall  be  duly  required  so  to 
do,  by  law,  and  by  the  civil  authorities. 
His  duty  is  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  exe 
cuted.  His  duty  is  to  support  the  civil 
authority.  Ilia  duty  is,  if  the  laws  be 
resisted,  to  employ  the  military  force  of 
the  country,  if  necessary,  for  their  sup 
port  and  execution ;  but  to  do  all  this  in 
compliance  only  with  law,  and  with  de 
cisions  of  the  tribunals.  If,  by  any  in 
genious  devices,  those  who  resist  the 
laws  escape  from  the  reach  of  judicial 
authority,  as  it  is  now  provided  to  be 
exercised,  it  is  entirely  competent  to 
Congress  to  make  such  new  provisions 
as  the  exigency  of  the  case  may  de 
mand.  These  provisions  undoubtedly 
would  be  made.  With  a  constitutional 
and  efficient  head  of  the  government, 
with  an  administration  really  and  truly 
in  favor  of  the  Constitution,  the  coun 
try  can  grapple  with  nullification.  By 
the  force  of  reason,  by  the  progress  of 
enlightened  opinion,  by  the  natural, 
genuine  patriotism  of  the  country,  and 
by  the  steady  and  well-sustained  opera 
tions  of  law,  the  progress  of  disorgan 
ization  may  be  successfully  checked,  and 
the  Union  maintained.  Let  it  be  re 
membered,  that,  where  nullification  is 
most  powerful,  it  is  not  unopposed. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  that  they  who 
would  break  up  the  Union  by  force  have 
to  march  toward  that  object  through 
thick  ranks  of  as  brave  and  good 
men  as  the  country  can  show,  —  men 
strong  in  character,  strong  in  intelli- 


EXECUTIVE   USURPATION. 


357 


gence,  strong  in  the  purity  of  their  own 
motives,  and  ready,  always  ready,  to 
sacrifice  their  fortunes  and  their  lives 
to  the  preservation  of  the  constitutional 
union  of  the  States.  If  we  can  relieve 
the  country  from  an  administration 
which  denies  to  the  Constitution  those  • 
powers  which  are  the  breath  of  its  life ; 
if  we  can  place  the  government  in  the 
hands  of  its  friends ;  if  we  can  secure  it 
against  the  dangers  of  irregular  and 
unlawful  military  force;  if  it  can  be 
under  the  lead  of  an  administration 
whose  moderation,  firmness,  and  wis 
dom  shall  inspire  confidence  and  com 
mand  respect, — we  may  yet  surmount 
the  dangers,  numerous  and  formidable 
as  they  are,  wrhich  surround  us. 

Sir,  I  see  little  prospect  of  overcom 
ing  these  dangers  without  a  change  of 
men.  After  all  that  has  passed,  the 
re-election  of  the  present  executive  will 
give  the  national  sanction  to  sentiments 
and  to  measures  which  will  effectually 
change  the  government;  which,  in  short, 
must  destroy  the  government.  If  the 
President  be  re-elected,  with  concur 
rent  and  co-operating  majorities  in  both 
houses  of  Congress,  I  do  not  see,  that, 
in  four  years  more,  all  the  power  which 
is  suffered  to  remain  in  the  government 
will  not  be  held  by  the  executive  hand. 
Nullification  will  proceed,  or  will  be  put 
down  by  a  power  as  unconstitutional  as 
itself.  The  revenues  will  be  managed 
by  a  treasury  bank.  The  use  of  the 
veto  will  be  considered  as  sanctioned  by 
the  public  voice.  The  Senate,  if  not 
"  cut  down,"  will  be  bound  down,  and, 
the  President  commanding  the  army 
and  the  navy,  and  holding  all  places 
of  trust  to  be  party  property,  what 
will  then  be  left,  Sir,  for  constitutional 
reliance? 

Sir,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  ven 
erate  the  judiciary,  and  to  repose  hopes 
of  safety  on  that  branch  of  the  govern 
ment.  But  let  us  not  deceive  ourselves. 
The  judicial  power  cannot  stand  for  a 
long  time  against  the  executive  power. 
The  judges,  it  is  true,  hold  their  places 
by  an  independent  tenure ;  but  they  are 
mortal.  That  which  is  the  common  lot 
of  humanity  must  make  it  necessary  to 


renew  the  benches  of  justice.  And  how 
will  they  be  filled?  Doubtless,  Sir,  they 
will  be  filled  by  judges  agreeing  with 
the  President  in  his  constitutional  opin 
ions.  If  the  court  is  felt  as  an  obstacle, 
the  first  opportunity  and  every  opportu 
nity  will  certainly  be  embraced  to  give 
it  less  and  less  the  character  of  an 
obstacle.  Sir,  without  pursuing  these 
suggestions,  I  only  say  that  the  country 
must  prepare  itself  for  any  change  in 
the  judicial  department  such  as  it  shall 
deliberately  sanction  in  other  depart 
ments. 

But,  Sir,  what  is  the  prospect  of 
change  ?  Is  there  any  hope  that  the 
national  sentiment  will  recover  its  ac 
customed  tone,  and  restore  to  the  gov 
ernment  a  just  and  efficient  adminis 
tration? 

Sir,  if  there  be  something  of  doubt  on 
this  point,  there  is  also  something,  per 
haps  much,  of  hope.  The  popularity  of 
the  present  chief  magistrate,  springing 
from  causes  not  connected  with  his  ad 
ministration  of  the  government,  has 
been  great.  Public  gratitude  for  mili 
tary  service  has  remained  fast  to  him, 
in  defiance  of  many  things  in  his  civil 
administration  calculated  to  weaken  its 
hold.  At  length  there  are  indications, 
not  to  be  mistaken,  of  new  sentiments 
and  new  impressions.  At  length,  a 
conviction  of  danger  to  important  in 
terests,  and  to  the  security  of  the  gov 
ernment,  has  made  its  lodgement  in  the 
public  mind.  At  length,  public  senti 
ment  begins  to  have  its  free  course  and 
to  produce  its  just  effects.  I  fully  be 
lieve,  Sir,  that  a  great  majority  of  the 
nation  desire  a  change  in  the  adminis 
tration  ;  and  that  it  will  be  difficult  for 
party  organization  or  party  denunciation 
to  suppress  the  effective  utterance  of 
that  general  wish.  There  are  unhappy 
differences,  it  is  true,  about  the  fit  per 
son  to  be  successor  to  the  present  incum 
bent  in  the  chief  magistracy;  and  it  is 
possible  that  this  disunion  may,  in  the 
end,  defeat  the  will  of  the  majority. 
But  so  far  as  we  agree  together,  let  us 
act  together.  Wherever  our  sentiments 
concur,  let  our  hands  co-operate.  If 
we  cannot  at  present  agree  who  should 


358 


EXECUTIVE   USURPATION. 


be-  President,  we  are  at  least  agreed  who 
ought  not  to  be.  I  fully  believe,  Sir, 
that  gratifying  intelligence  is  already  on 
the  wing.  While  we  are  yet  deliberat 
ing  in  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania  is 
voting.  This  week,  she  elects  her  mem 
bers  to  the  next  Congress.  I  doubt  not 
the  result  of  that  election  will  show  an 
important  change  in  public  sentiment 
in  that  State;  nor  can  I  doubt  that  the 
great  States  adjoining  her,  holding 
similar  constitutional  principles  and 
having  similar  interests,  will  feel  the 
impulse  of  the  same  causes  which  affect 
her.  The  people  of  the  United  States, 
by  a  countless  majority,  are  attached  to 
the  Constitution.  If  they  shall  be  con 
vinced  that  it  is  in  danger,  they  will 
come  to  its  rescue,  and  will  save  it.  It 
cannot  be  destroyed,  even  now,  if  THEY 
will  undertake  its  guardianship  and 
protection. 

But  suppose,  Sir,  there  was  less  hope 
than  there  is,  would  that  consideration 
weaken  the  force  of  our  obligations? 
Are  we  at  a  post  which  we  are  at  liberty 
to  desert  when  it  becomes  difficult  to 
hold  it?  May  we  fly  at  the  approach  of 
danger?  Does  our  fidelity  to  the  Con 
stitution  require  no  more  of  us  than  to 
enjoy  its  blessings,  to  bask  in  the  pros 
perity  which  it  has  shed  around  us  and 
our  fathers?  and  are  we  at  liberty  to 
abandon  it  in  the  hour  of  its  peril,  or  to 
make  for  it  but  a  faint  and  heartless 
struggle,  for  the  want  of  encourage 
ment  and  the  want  of  hope  ?  Sir,  if  no 
State  come  to  our  succor,  if  everywhere 
else  the  contest  should  be  given  up,  here 
let  it  be  protracted  to  the  last  moment. 
Here,  where  the  first  blood  of  the  Revo 
lution  was  shed,  let  the  last  effort  be 
made  for  that  which  is  the  greatest 
blessing  obtained  by  the  Revolution,  a 
free  and  united  government.  Sir,  in 
our  endeavors  to  maintain  our  existing 


forms  of  government,  we  are  acting  not 
for  ourselves  alone,  but  for  the  great 
cause  of  constitutional  liberty  all  over 
the  globe.  We  are  trustees  holding  a 
sacred  treasure,  in  which  all  the  lovers 
of  freedom  have  a  stake.  Not  only  in 
revolutionized  France,  where  there  are 
no  longer  subjects,  where  the  monarch 
can  no  longer  say,  I  am  the  state;  not 
only  in  reformed  England,  where  our 
principles,  our  institutions,  our  practice 
of  free  government,  are  now  daily  quoted 
and  commended;  but  in  the  depths  of 
Germany,  also,  and  among  the  desolated 
fields  and  the  still  smoking  ashes  of 
Poland,  prayers  are  uttered  for  the 
preservation  of  our  union  and  happiness. 
We  are  surrounded,  Sir,  by  a  cloud  of 
witnesses.  The  gaze  of  the  sons  of  lib 
erty,  everywhere,  is  upon  us,  anxiously, 
intently,  upon  us.  They  may  see  us 
fall  in  the  struggle  for  our  Constitution 
and  government,  but  Heaven  forbid  that 
they  should  see  us  recreant. 

At  least,  Sir,  let  the  star  of  Massa 
chusetts  be  the'  last  which  shall  be  seen 
to  fall  from  heaven,  and  to  plunge  into 
the  utter  darkness  of  disunion.  Let 
her  shrink  back,  let  her  hold  others  back 
if  she  can,  at  any  rate,  let  her  keep  her 
self  back,  from  this  gulf,  full  at  once  of 
fire  and  of  blackness;  yes,  Sir,  as  far  as 
human  foresight  can  scan,  or  human 
imagination  fathom,  full  of  the  fire  and 
the  blood  of  civil  war,  and  of  the  thick 
darkness  of  general  political  disgrace, 
ignominy,  and  ruin.  Though  the  worst 
may  happen  that  can  happen,  and 
though  she  may  not  be  able  to  prevent 
the  catastrophe,  yet  let  her  maintain 
her  own  integrity,  her  own  high  honor, 
her  own  unwavering  fidelity,  so  that 
with  respect  and  decency,  though  with 
a  broken  and  a  bleeding  heart,  she  may 
pay  the  last  tribute  to  a  glorious,  de 
parted,  free  Constitution. 


THE  NATURAL  HATRED  OF  THE  POOR  TO 
THE  '  RICH. 

FROM  A  SPEECH    IN   THE    SENATE    OF    THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  31ST, 
1834,   ON   "THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS." 


SIR,  there  is  one  other  subject  on 
which  I  wish  to  raise  my  voice.  There 
is  a  topic  which  I  perceive  is  to  be 
come  the  general  war-cry  of  party,  on 
which  I  take  the  liberty  to  warn  the 
country  against  delusion.  Sir,  the  cry 
is  to  be  raised  that  this  is  a  question 
between  the  poor  and  the  rich.  I  know, 
Sir,  it  has  been  proclaimed,  that  one 
thing  was  certain,  that  there  was  always 
a  hatred  on  the  part  of  the  poor  toward 
the  rich;  and  that  this  hatred  would 
support  the  late  measures,  and  the  put 
ting  down  of  the  bank.  Sir,  I  will  not 
be  silent  at  the  threat  of  such  a  detesta 
ble  fraud  on  public  opinion.  If  but  ten 
men,  or  one  man,  in  the  nation  will  hear 
my  voice,  I  will  still  warn  them  against 
this  attempted  imposition. 

Mr.  President,  this  is  an  eventful  mo 
ment.  On  the  great  questions  which 
occupy  us,  we  all  look  for  some  decisive 
movement  of  public  opinion.  As  I  wish 
that  movement  to  be  free,  intelligent, 
and  unbiassed,  the  true  manifestation  of 
the  public  will,  I  desire  to  prepare  the 
country  for  another  appeal,  which  I 
perceive  is  about  to  be  made  to  popular 
prejudice,  another  attempt  to  obscure 
all  distinct  views  of  the  public  good,  to 
overwhelm  all  patriotism  and  all  enlight 
ened  self-interest,  by  loud  cries  against 
false  danger,  and  by  exciting  the  pas 
sions  of  one  class  against  another.  I 
am  not  mistaken  in  the  omen ;  I  see  the 
magazine  whence  the  weapons  of  this 
warfare  are  to  be  drawn.  I  hear  already 
the  din  of  the  hammering  of  arms  pre 


paratory  to  the  combat.  They  may  be 
such  arms,  perhaps,  as  reason,  and  jus 
tice,  and  honest  patriotism  cannot  resist. 
Every  effort  at  resistance,  it  is  possible, 
may  be  feeble  and  powerless;  but,  for 
one,  I  shall  make  an  effort,  —  an  effort 
to  be  begun  now,  and  to  be  carried  on 
and  continued,  with  untiring  zeal,  till 
the  end  of  the  contest. 

Sir,  I  see,  in  those  vehicles  which 
carry  to  the  people  sentiments  from  high 
places,  plain  declarations  that  the  pres 
ent  controversy  is  but  a  strife  between 
one  part  of  the  community  and  another. 
I  hear  it  boasted  as  the  unfailing  secu 
rity,  the  solid  ground,  never  to  be  shaken, 
on  which  recent  measures  rest,  that  the 
poor  naturally  hate  the  rich.  I  know 
that,  under  the  cover  of  the  roofs  of  the 
Capitol,  within  the  last  twenty- four 
hours,  among  men  sent  here  to  devise 
means  for  the  public  safety  and  the 
public  good,  it  has  been  vaunted  forth, 
as  matter  of  boast  and  triumph,  that 
one  cause  existed  powerful  enough  to 
support  every  thing  and  to  defend  every 
thing;  and  that  was,  the  natural  hatred 
of  the  poor  to  the  rich. 

Sir,  I  pronounce  the  author  of  such 
sentiments  to  be  guilty  of  attempting  a 
detestable  fraud  on  the  community;  a 
double  fraud ;  a  fraud  which  is  to  cheat 
men  out  of  their  property,  and  out  of  the 
earnings  of  their  labor,  by  first  cheating 
them  out  of  their  understandings. 

"  The  natural  hatred  of  the  poor  to 
the  rich!"  Sir,  it  shall  not  be  till  the 
last  moment  of  my  existence,  —  it  shall 


!60 


THE  NATURAL  HATRED  OF  THE  POOR  TO  THE  RICH. 


be  only  when  I  am  drawn  to  the  verge 
of  oblivion,  when  I  shall  cease  to  have 
respect  or  affection  for  any  thing  on 
earth, — that  I  will  believe  the  people 
of  the  United  States  capable  of  being 
effectually  deluded,  cajoled,  and  driven 
about  in  herds,  by  such  abominable 
frauds  as  this.  If  they  shall  sink  to 
that  point,  if  they  so  far  cease  to  be 
men,  thinking  men,  intelligent  men,  as 
to  yield  to  such  pretences  and  such 
clamor,  they  will  be  slaves  already  ; 
slaves  to  their  own  passions,  slaves  to 
the  fraud  and  knavery  of  pretended 
friends.  They  will  deserve  to  be  blotted 
out  of  all  the  records  of  freedom ;  they 
ought  not  to  dishonor  the  cause  of  self- 
government,  by  attempting  any  longer 
to  exercise  it;  they  ought  to  keep  their 
unworthy  hands  entirely  off  from  the 
cause  of  republican  liberty,  if  they  are 
capable  of  being  the  victims  of  artifices 
so  shallow,  of  tricks  so  stale,  so  thread 
bare,  so  often  practised,  so  much  worn 
out,  on  serfs  and  slaves. 

"The  natural  hatred  of  the  poor 
against  the  rich!  "  "  The  danger  of  a 
moneyed  aristocracy!"  "A  power  as 
great  and  dangerous  as  that  resisted  by 
the  Revolution!"  "A  call  to  a  new 
declaration  of  independence!  "  Sir,  I 
admonish  the  people  against  the  object 
of  outcries  like  these.  I  admonish  every 
industrious  laborer  in  the  country  to  be 
on  his  guard  against  such  delusion.  I 
tell  him  the  attempt  is  to  play  off  his 
passions  against  his  interests,  and  to 
prevail  on  him,  in  the  name  of  liberty, 
to  destroy  all  the  fruits  of  liberty;  in 
the  name  of  patriotism,  to  injure  and 
afflict  his  country;  and  in  the  name  of 
his  own  independence,  to  destroy  that 
very  independence,  and  make  him  a 
beggar  arid  a  slave.  Has  he  a  dollar? 
He  is  advised  to  do  that  which  will  de 
stroy  half  its  Value.  Has  he  hands  to 
labor?  Let  him  rather  fold  them,  and 
sit  still,  than  be  pushed  on,  by  fraud 
and  artifice,  to  support  measures  which 
will  render  his  labor  useless  and  hope 
less. 

Sir,  the  very  man,  of  all  others,  who 
has  the  deepest  interest  in  a  sound  cur 
rency,  and  who  suffers  most  by  mis 


chievous  legislation  in  money  matters, 
is  the  man  who  earns  his  daily  bread 
by  his  (^ily  toil.  A  depreciated  cur 
rency,  sudden  changes  of  prices,  paper 
money,  falling  between  morning  and 
noon,  and  falling  still  lower  between 
noon  and  night,  —  these  things  consti 
tute  the  very  harvest-time  of  specula 
tors,  and  of  the  whole  race  of  those 
who  are  at  once  idle  and  crafty;  and  of 
that  other  race,  too,  the  Catilines  of  all 
times,  marked,  so  as  to  be  known  for 
ever  by  one  stroke  of  the  historian's 
pen,  those  greedy  of  other  men's  property 
and  prodigal  of  their  own.  Capitalists, 
too,  may  outlive  such  times.  They  may 
either  prey  on  the  earnings  of  labor,  by 
their  cent,  per  cent.,  or  they  may  hoard. 
But  the  laboring  man,  what  can  he 
hoard?  Preying  on  nobody,  he  becomes 
the  prey  of  all.  His  property  is  in  his 
hands.  His  reliance,  his  fund,  his  pro 
ductive  freehold,  his  all,  is  his  labor. 
Whether  he  work  on  his  own  small  cap 
ital,  or  another's,  his  living  is  still  earned 
by  his  industry;  and  when  the  money 
of  the  country  becomes  depreciated  and 
debased,  whether  it  be  adulterated  coin 
or  paper  without  credit,  that  industry  is 
robbed  of  its  reward.  He  then  labors 
for  a  country  whose  laws  cheat  him  out 
of  his  bread.  I  would  say  to  every 
owner  of  every  quarter-section  of  land 
in  the  West,  I  would  say  to  every  man 
in  the  East  who  follows  his  own  plough, 
and  to  every  mechanic,  artisan,  and  la 
borer  in  every  city  in  the  country,  — I 
would  say  to  every  man,  everywhere, 
who  wishes  by  honest  means  to  gain  an 
honest  living,  "Beware  of  wolves  in 
sheep's  clothing.  Whoever  attempts, 
under  whatever  popular  cry,  to  shake  the 
stability  of  the  public  currency,  bring 
on  distress  in  money  matters,  and  drive 
the  country  into  the  use  of  paper  money, 
stabs  your  interest  and  your  happiness 
to  the 'heart." 

The  herd  of  hungry  wolves  who  live 
on  other  men's  earnings  will  rejoice  in 
such  a  state  of  things.  A  system  which 
absorbs  into  their  pockets  the  fruits  of 
other  men's  industry  is  the  very  system 
for  them.  A  government  that  produces 
or  countenances  uncertainty,  fluctua- 


THE  NATURAL  HATRED  OF  THE  POOR  TO  THE  RICH. 


361 


tions,  violent  risings  and  fallings  in 
prices,  and,  finally,  paper  money,  is 
a  government  exactly  after  their  own 
heart.  Hence  these  men  are  always  for 
change.  They  will  never  let  well  enough 
alone.  A  condition  of  public  affairs  in 
which  property  is  safe,  industry  certain* 
of  its  reward,  and  every  man  secure  in 
his  own  hard-earned  gains,  is  no  para 
dise  for  them.  Give  them  just  the  re 
verse  of  this  state  of  things;  bring  on 
change,  and  change  after  change;  let  it 
not  be  known  to-day  what  will  be  the 
value  of  property  to-morrow ;  let  no  man 
be  able  to  say  whether  the  money  in  his 
pockets  at  night  will  be  money  or  worth 
less  rags  in  the  morning;  and  depress 
labor  till  double  work  shall  earn  but 
half  a  living,  —  give  them  this  state  of 
things,  and  you  give  them  the  consum 
mation  of  their  earthly  bliss. 

Sir,  the  great  interest  of  this  great 
country,  the  producing  cause  of  all  its 
prosperity,  is  labor!  labor!  labor!  We 
are  a  laboring  community.  A  vast  ma 
jority  of  us  all  live  by  industry  and  ac 
tual  employment  in  some  of  their  forms. 
The  Constitution  was  made  to  protect 
this  industry,  to  give  it  both  encourage 
ment  and  security;  but,  above  all,  se 
curity.  To  that  very  end,  with  that 
precise  object  in  view,  power  was  given 
to  Congress  over  the  currency,  and  over 
the  money  system  of  the  country.  In 


forty  years'  experience,  we  have  found 
nothing  at  all  adequate  to  the  beneficial 
execution  of  this  trust  but  a  well-con 
ducted  national  bank.  That  has  been 
tried,  returned  to,  tried  again,  and  al 
ways  found  successful.  If  it  be  not  the 
proper  thing  for  us,  let  it  be  soberly 
argued  against;  let  something  better 
be  proposed;  let  the  country  examine 
the  matter  coolly,  and  decide  for  itself. 
But  whoever  shall  attempt  to  carry  a 
question  of  this  kind  by  clamor,  and 
violence,  and  prejudice;  whoever  would 
rouse  the  people  by  appeals,  false  and 
fraudulent  appeals,  to  their  love  of  inde 
pendence,  to  resist  the  establishment  of 
a  useful  institution,  because  it  is  a  bank, 
and  deals  in  money,  and  who  artfully 
urges  these  appeals  wherever  he  thinks 
there  is  more  of  honest  feeling  than  of 
enlightened  judgment, — means  nothing 
but  deception.  And  whoever  has  the 
wickedness  to  conceive,  and  the  hardi 
hood  to  avow,  a  purpose  to  break  down 
what  has  been  found,  in  forty  years' 
experience,  essential  to  the  protection 
of  all  interests,  by  arraying  one  class 
against  another,  and  by  acting  on  such 
a  principle  as  that  the  poor  always  hate 
the  rich,  shows  himself  the  reckless  ene 
my  of  all.  An  enemy  to  his  whole 
country,  to  all  classes,  and  to  every  man 
in  it,  he  deserves  to  be  marked  espe 
cially  as  the  poor  man's  curse  ! 


A  REDEEMABLE  PAPER  CURRENCY. 


FROM  A  SPEECH    DELIVERED  IN    THE    SENATE  OF,  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON 
THE22D  OF  FEBRUARY,   1834. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  honorable 
member  from  Georgia  stated  yesterday, 
more  distinctly  than  I  have  before  learned 
it,  what  that  experiment  is  which  the 
government  is  now  trying  on  the  revenues 
and  the  currency,  and,  I  may  add,  on 
the  commerce,  manufactures,  and  agri 
culture  of  this  country.  If  I  rightly 
apprehend  him,  this  experiment  is  an 
attempt  to  return  to  an  exclusive  specie 
currency,  first,  by  employing  the  State 
banks  as  a  substitute  for  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States;  and  then  by  dispens 
ing  with  the  use  of  the  State  banks 
themselves. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  experiment.  I  thank 
the  gentleman  for  thus  stating  its  char 
acter.  He  has  done  his  duty,  and  dealt 
fairly  with  the  people,  by  this  exhibi 
tion  of  what  the  views  of  the  executive 
government  are,  at  this  interesting  mo 
ment.  It  is  certainly  most  proper  that 
the  people  should  see  distinctly  to  what 
end  or  for  what  object  it  is  that  so  much 
suffering  is  already  upon  them,  and  so 
much  more  already  in  visible  and  near 
prospect. 

And  now,  Sir,  is  it  possible,  —  is  it 
possible  that  twelve  millions  of  intelli 
gent  people  can  be  expected  voluntarily 
to  subject  themselves  to  severe  distress, 
of  unknown  duration,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  trial  of  an  experiment  like 
this?  Will  a  nation  that  is  intelligent, 
well  informed  of  its  own  interest,  en 
lightened,  and  capable  of  self-govern 
ment,  submit  to  suffer  embarrassment 
in  all  its  pursuits,  loss  of  capital,  loss 


of  employment,  and  a  sudden  and  dead 
stop  in  its  onward  movement  in  the  path 
of  prosperity  and  wealth,  until  it  shall 
be  ascertained  whether  this  new-hatched 
theory  shall  answer  the  hopes  of  those 
who  have  devised  it?  Is  the  country  to 
be  persuaded  to  bear  every  thing,  and 
bear  patiently,  until  the  operation  of 
such  an  experiment,  adopted  for  such 
an  avowed  object,  and  adopted,  too, 
without  the  co-operation  or  consent  of 
Congress,  and  by  the  executive  power 
alone,  shall  exhibit  its  results? 

In  the  name  of  the  hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  our  suffering  fellow-citizens,  I 
ask,  for  what  reasonable  end  is  this  ex 
periment  to  be  tried?  What  great  and 
good  object,  worth  so  much  cost,  is  it  to 
accomplish?  What  enormous  evil  is  to 
be  remedied  by  all  this  inconvenience 
and  all  this  suffering?  What  great  ca 
lamity  is  to  be  averted?  Have  the  peo 
ple  thronged  our  doors,  and  loaded  our 
tables  with  petitions  for  relief  against 
the  pressure  of  some  political  mischief, 
some  notorious  misrule,  which  this  ex 
periment  is  to  redress?  Has  it  been  re 
sorted  to  in  an  hour  of  misfortune,  ca 
lamity,  or  peril,  to  save  the  state?  Is  it 
a  measure  of  remedy,  yielded  to  the  im 
portunate  cries  of  an  agitated  and  dis 
tressed  nation  ?  Far,  Sir,  very  far  from 
all  this.  There  was  no  calamity,  there 
was  no  suffering,  there  was  no  peril, 
when  these  measures  began.  At  the 
moment  when  this  experiment  was  en 
tered  upon,  these  twelve  millions  of  peo 
ple  were  prosperous  and  happy,  not  only 


A  REDEEMABLE   PAPER   CURRENCY. 


363 


beyond  the  example  of  all  others,  but 
even  beyond  their  own  example  in 
times  past. 

There  was  no  pressure  of  public  or 
private  distress  throughout  the  whole 
land.  All  business  was  prosperous,  all  t 
industry  was  rewarded,  and  cheerful 
ness  and  content  universally  prevailed. 
Yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  enjoyment, 
with  so  much  to  heighten  and  so  little 
to  mar  it,  this  experiment  comes  upon 
us,  to  harass  and  oppress  us  at  present, 
and  to  affright  us  for  the  future.  Sir, 
it  is  incredible;  the  world  abroad  will 
not  believe  it ;  it  is  difficult  even  for  us 
to  credit,  who  see  it  with  our  own  eyes, 
that  the  country,  at  such  a  moment, 
should  put  itself  upon  an  experiment 
fraught  with  such  immediate  and  over 
whelming  evils,  and  threatening  the 
property  and  the  employments  of  the 
people,  and  all  their  social  and  political 
blessings,  with  severe  and  long-endur 
ing  future  inflictions. 

And  this  experiment,  with  all  its  cost, 
is  to  be  tried,  for  what?  Why,  simply, 
Sir,  to  enable  us  to  try  another  "ex 
periment";  and  that  other  experiment 
is,  to  see  whether  an  exclusive  specie 
currency  may  not  be  better  than  a  cur 
rency  partly  specie  and  partly  bank 
paper!  The  object  which  it  is  hoped 
we  may  effect,  by  patiently  treading 
this  path  of  endurance,  is  to  banish  all 
bank  paper,  of  all  kinds,  and  to  have 
coined  money,  and  coined  money  only, 
as  the  actual  currency  of  the  country ! 

]S"ow,  Sir,  I  altogether  deny  that  such 
an  object  is  at  all  desirable,  even  if  it 
could  be  attained.  I  know,  indeed,  that 
all  paper  ought  to  circulate  on  a  specie 
basis;  that  all  bank-notes,  to  be  safe, 
must  be  convertible  into  gold  and  silver 
at  the  will  of  the  holder;  and  I  admit, 
too,  that  the  issuing  of  very  small  notes 
by  many  of  the  State  banks  has  too 
much  reduced  the  amount  of  specie 
actually  circulating.  It  may  be  remem 
bered  that  I  called  the  attention  of  Con 
gress  to  this  subject  in  1832,  and  that 
the  bill  which  then  passed  both  houses 
for  renewing  the  bank  charter  contained 
a  provision  designed  to  produce  some 
restraint  on  the  circulation  of  very  small 


notes.  I  admit  there  are  conveniences 
in  making  small  payments  in  specie; 
and  I  have  always,  not  only  admitted, 
but  contended,  that,  if  all  issues  of  bank 
notes  under  five  dollars  were  discontin 
ued,  much  more  specie  would  be  retained 
in  the  country,  and  in  the  circulation ; 
and  that  great  security  would  result  from 
this.  But  we  are  now  debating  about  an 
exclusive  specie  currency;  and  I  deny 
that  an  exclusive  specie  currency  is  the 
best  currency  for  any  highly  commercial 
country;  and  I  deny,  especially,  that 
such  a  currency  would  be  best  suited  to 
the  condition  and  circumstances  of  the 
United  States.  With  the  enlightened 
writers  and  practical  statesmen  of  all 
commercial  communities  in  modern 
times,  I  have  supposed  it  to  be  admit 
ted  that  a  well  regulated,  properly  re 
strained,  safely  limited  paper  currency, 
circulating  on  an  adequate  specie  basis, 
was  a  thing  to  be  desired,  a  political 
public  advantage  to  be  obtained,  if  it 
might  be  obtained  ;  and,  more  espe 
cially,  I  have  supposed  that  in  a  new 
country,  with  resources  not  yet  half 
developed,  with  a  rapidly  increasing 
population  and  a  constant  demand  for 
more  and  more  capital,  —  that  is  to  say, 
in  just  such  a  country  as  the  United 
States  are,  I  have  supposed  that  it  was 
admitted  that  there  are  particular  and 
extraordinary  advantages  in  a  safe  and 
well  regulated  paper  currency;  because 
in  such  a  country  well  regulated  bank 
paper  not  only  supplies  a  convenient 
medium  of  payments  and  of  exchange, 
but  also,  by  the  expansion  of  that  me 
dium  in  a  reasonable  and  safe  degree, 
the  amount  of  circulation  is  kept  more 
nearly  commensurate  with  the  constant 
ly  increasing  amount  of  property;  and 
an  extended  capital,  in  the  shape  of 
credit,  comes  to  the  aid  of  the  enter 
prising  and  the  industrious.  It  is  pre 
cisely  on  this  credit,  created  by  reason 
able  expansion  of  the  currency  in  a  new 
country,  that  men  of  small  capital  carry 
on  their  business.  It  is  exactly  by 
means  of  this,  that  industry  and  enter 
prise  are  stimulated.  If  we  were  driven 
back  to  an  exclusively  metallic  curren 
cy,  the  necessary  and  inevitable  conse- 


364 


A  REDEEMABLE  PAPER  CURRENCY. 


quence  would  be,  that  all  trade  would 
fall  into  the  hands  of  large  capitalists. 
This  is  so  plain,  that  no  man  of  reflec 
tion  can  doubt  it.  I  know  not,  there 
fore,  in  what  words  to  express  my  as 
tonishment,  when  I  hear  it  said  that  the 
present  measures  of  government  are  in 
tended  for  the  good  of  the  many  instead 
of  the  few,  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor, 
and  against  the  rich ;  and  when  I  hear 
it  proposed,  at  the  same  moment,  to  do 
away  with  the  whole  system  of  credit, 
and  place  all  trade  and  commerce,  there 
fore,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  ade 
quate  capital  to  carry  them  on  without 
the  use  of  any  credit  at  all.  This,  Sir, 
would  be  dividing  society,  by  a  precise, 
distinct,  and  well-defined  line,  into  two 
classes ;  first,  the  small  class,  who  have 
competent  capital  for  trade,  when  credit 
is  out  of  the  question;  and,  secondly, 
the  vastly  numerous  class  of  those  whose 
living  must  become,  in  such  a  state  of 
things,  a  mere  manual  occupation,  with 
out  the  use  of  capital  or  of  any  substi 
tute  for  it. 

Now,  Sir,  it  is  the  effect  of  a  well- 
regulated  system  of  paper  credit  to  break 
in  upon  this  line  thus  dividing  the  many 
from  the  few,  and  to  enable  more  or  less 
of  the  more  numerous  class  to  pass  over 
it,  and  to  participate  in  the  profits  of 
capital  by  means  of  a  safe  and  conven 
ient  substitute  for  capital ;  and  thus  to 
diffuse  far  more  widely  the  general  earn 
ings,  and  therefore  the  general  prosper 
ity  and  happiness,  of  society.  Every 
man  of  observation  must  have  witnessed, 
in  this  country,  that  men  of  heavy  capi 
tal  have  constantly  complained  of  bank 
circulation,  and  a  consequent  credit  svs- 
tem,  as  injurious  to  the  rights  of  capital. 
They  undoubtedly  feel  its  effects.  All 
that  is  gained  by  the  use  of  credit  is 
just  so  much  subtracted  from  the  amount 
of  their  own  accumulations,  and  so  much 
the  more  has  gone  to  the  benefit  of  those 
who  bestow  their  own  labor  and  indus 
try  on  capital  in  small  amounts.  To  the 
great  majority,  this  has  been  of  incal 
culable  benefit  in  the  United  States;  and 
therefore,  Sir,  whoever  attempts  the  en 
tire  overthrow  of  the  system  of  bank 
credit  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  the  interest 


of  that  great  and  industrious  class,  who, 
having  some  capital,  cannot,  neverthe 
less,  transact  business  without  some 
credit.  He  can  mean  nothing  else,  if 
he  have  any  intelligible  meaning  at  all, 
than  to  turn  all  such  persons  over  to  the 
long  list  of  mere  manual  laborers.  What 
else  can  they  do,  with  not  enough  of 
absolute  capital,  and  with  no  credit? 
This,  Sir,  this  is  the  true  tendency  and 
the  unavoidable  result  of  these  measures, 
which  have  been  undertaken  with  the 
patriotic  object  of  assisting  the  poor 
against  the  rich ! 

I  am  well  aware  that  bank  credit  may 
be  abused.  I  know  that  there  is  another 
extreme,  exactly  the  opposite  of  that  of 
which  I  have  now  been  speaking,  and  no 
less  sedulously  to  be  avoided.  I  know 
that  the  issue  of  bank  paper  may  be 
come  excessive;  that  depreciation  will 
then  follow  ;  and  that  the  evils,  the 
losses,  and  the  frauds  consequent  on  a 
disordered  currency  fall  on  the  rich  and 
the  poor  together,  but  with  especial 
weight  of  ruin  on  the  poor.  I  know 
that  the  system  of  bank  credit  must  al 
ways  rest  on  a  specie  basis,  and  that  it 
constantly  needs  to  be  strictly  guarded 
and  properly  restrained;  and  it  may  be 
so  guarded  and  restrained.  We  need 
not  give  up  the  good  which  belongs  to 
it,  through  fear  of  the  evils  which  may 
follow  from  its  abuse.  We  have  the 
power  to  take  security  against  these  evils. 
It  is  our  business,  as  statesmen,  to  adopt 
that  security ;  it  is  our  business  not  to 
prostrate,  or  attempt  to  prostrate,  the 
system,  but  to  use  those  means  of  pre 
caution,  restraint,  and  correction  which 
experience  has  sanctioned,  and  which 
are  ready  at  our  hands. 

It  would  be  to  our  everlasting  re 
proach,  it  would  be  placing  us  below  the 
general  level  of  the  intelligence  of  civil 
ized  states,  to  admit  that  we  cannot 
contrive  means  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
bank  circulation,  and  of  avoiding,  at 
the  same  time,  its  dangers.  Indeed,  Sir, 
no  contrivance  is  necessary.  It  is  con 
trivance,  and  the  love  of  contrivance, 
that  spoil  all.  We  are  destroying  our 
selves  by  a  remedy  which  no  evil  called 
for.  We  are  ruining  perfect  health  by 


A   REDEEMABLE   PAPER  CURRENCY. 


365 


nostrums  and  quackery.  We  have  lived 
hitherto  under  a  well  constructed,  prac 
tical,  and  beneficial  system;  a  system 
not  surpassed  by  any  in  the  world ;  and 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  presuming  largely, 
largely  indeed,  on  the  credulity  and  self- 
denial  of  the  people,  to  rush  with  such  * 
sudden  and  impetuous  haste  into  new 
schemes  and  new  theories,  to  overturn 
and  annihilate  all  that  we  have  so  long 
found  useful. 

Our  system  has  hitherto  been  one  in 
which  paper  has  been  circulating  on  the 
strength  of  a  specie  basis;  that  is  to  say, 
when  every  bank-note  was  convertible 
into  specie  at  the  will  of  the  holder. 
This  has  been  our  guard  against  excess. 
While  banks  are  bound  to  redeem  their 
bills  by  paying  gold  and  silver  on  de 
mand,  and  are  at  all  times  able  to  do 
this,  the  currency  is  safe  and  conven 
ient.  Such  a  currency  is  not  paper 
money,  in  its  odious  sense.  It  is  not 
like  the  Continental  paper  of  Revolu 
tionary  times ;  it  is  not  like  the  worth 
less  bills  of  banks  which  have  suspended 
specie  payments.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  the  representative  of  gold  and  silver, 
and  convertible  into  gold  and  silver 
on  demand,  and  therefore  answers  the 
purposes  of  gold  and  silver;  and  so  long 
as  its  credit  is  in  this  way  sustained,  it 
is  the  cheapest,  the  best,  and  the  most 
convenient  circulating  medium.  I  have 
already  endeavored  to  warn  the  country 
against  irredeemable  paper;  against  the 
paper  of  banks  which  do  not  pay  specie 
for  their  own  notes;  against  that  miser 
able,  abominable,  and  fraudulent  policy, 
which  attempts  to  give  value  to  any 
paper,  of  any  bank,  one  single  moment 
longer  than  such  paper  is  redeemable  on 
demand  in  gold  and  silver.  I  wish  most 
solemnly  and  earnestly  to  repeat  that 
warning.  I  see  danger  of  that  state  of 
things  ahead.  I  see  imminent  danger 
that  a  portion  of  the  State  banks  will 
stop  specie  payments.  The  late  measure 
of  the  Secretary,  and  the  infatuation  with 
which  it  seems  to  be  supported,  tend  di 
rectly  and  strongly  to  that  result.  Un 
der  pretence,  then,  of  a  design  to  return 
to  a  currency  which  shall  be  all  specie, 
we  are  likely  to  have  a  currency  in  which 


there  shall  be  no  specie  at  all.  We  are 
in  danger  of  being  overwhelmed  with 
irredeemable  paper,  mere  paper,  repre 
senting  not  gold  nor  silver;  no,  Sir,  rep 
resenting  nothing  but  broken  promises, 
bad  faith,  bankrupt  corporations,  cheat 
ed  creditors,  and  a  ruined  people.  This, 
I  fear,  Sir,  may  be  the  consequence,  al 
ready  alarmingly  near,  of  this  attempt, 
unwise  if  it  be  real,  and  grossly  fraudu 
lent  if  it  be  only  pretended,  of  establish 
ing  an  exclusively  hard-money  currency. 

But,  Sir,  if  this  shock  could  be  avoid 
ed,  and  if  we  could  reach  the  object  of 
an  exclusive  metallic  circulation,  we 
should  find  in  that  very  success  serious 
and  i nsurmoun table  inconveniences.  We 
require  neither  irredeemable  paper,  nor 
yet  exclusively  hard  money.  We  require 
a  mixed  system.  We  require  specie,  and 
we  require,  too,  good  bank  paper,  found 
ed  on  specie,  representing  specie,  and 
convertible  into  specie  on  demand.  We 
require,  in  short,  just  such  a  currency  as 
we  have  long  enjoyed,  and  the  advan 
tages  of  which  we  seem  now,  with  un 
accountable  rashness,  about  to  throw 
away. 

I  avow  myself,  therefore,  decidedly 
against  the  object  of  a  return  to  an  ex 
clusive  specie  currency.  I  find  great 
difficulty,  I  confess,  in  believing  any  man 
serious  in  avowing  such  an  object.  It 
seems  to  me  rather  a  subject  for  ridi 
cule,  at  this  age  of  the  world,  than  for 
sober  argument.  But  if  it  be  true  that 
any  are  serious  for  the  return  of  the  gold 
and  silver  age,  I  am  seriously  against  it. 

Let  us,  Sir,  anticipate,  in  imagina 
tion,  the  accomplishment  of  this  grand 
experiment.  Let  us  suppose  that,  at 
this  moment,  all  bank  paper  were  out  of 
existence,  and  the  country  full  of  specie. 
Where,  Sir,  should  we  put  it,  and  what 
should  we  do  with  it  ?  Should  we  ship 
it,  by  cargoes,  every  day,  from  New 
York  to  New  Orleans,  and  from  New 
Orleans  back  to  New  York  ?  Should  we 
encumber  the  turnpikes,  the  railroads, 
and  the  steamboats  with  it,  whenever 
purchases  and  sales  were  to  be  made  in 
one  place  of  articles  to  be  transported  to 
another?  The  carriage  of  the  money 
would,  in  some  cases,  cost  half  as  much 


366 


A  REDEEMABLE  PAPER  CURRENCY. 


as  the  carriage  of  the  goods.  Sir,  the 
very  first  day,  under  such  a  state  of 
things,  we  should  set  ourselves  about 
the  creation  of  banks.  This  would  im 
mediately  become  necessary  and  una 
voidable.  We  may  assure  ourselves, 
therefore,  without  danger  of  mistake, 
that  the  idea  of  an  exclusively  metallic 
currency  is  totally  incompatible,  in  the 
existing  state  of  the  world,  with  an  ac 
tive  and  extensive  commerce.  It  is  in 
consistent,  too,  with  the  greatest  good 
of  the  greatest  number;  and  therefore  I 
oppose  it. 

But,  Sir,  how  are  we  to  get  through 
the  first  experiment,  so  as  to  be  able  to 
try  that  which  is  to  be  final  and  ulti 
mate,  that  is  to  say,  how  are  we  to  get 
rid  of  the  State  banks  ?  How  is  this  to 
be  accomplished  ?  Of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  indeed,  wre  may  free  our 
selves  readily ;  but  how  are  we  to  anni 
hilate  the  State  banks  ?  We  did  not 
speak  them  into  being;  we  cannot  speak 
them  out  of  being.  They  did  not  origi 
nate  in  any  exercise  of  our  power;  nor 
do  they  owe  their  continuance  to  our  in 
dulgence.  They  are  responsible  to  the 
States ;  to  us  they  are  irresponsible.  We 
cannot  act  upon  them;  we  can  only  act 
with  them;  and  the  expectation,  as  it 
would  appear,  is,  that,  by  zealously  co 
operating  with  the  government  in  carry 
ing  into  operation  its  new  theory,  they 
may  disprove  the  necessity  of  their  own 
existence,  and  fairly  work  themselves 
out  of  the  world  !  Sir,  I  ask  once  more, 
Is  a  great  and  intelligent  community  to 
endure  patiently  all  sorts  of  suffering  for 
fantasies  like  these  ?  How  charmingly 
practicable,  how  delightfully  probable, 
all  this  looks! 

I  find  it  impossible,  Mr.  President,  to 
believe  that  the  removal  of  the  deposits 


arose  in  any  such  purpose  as  is  now 
avowed.  I  believe  all  this  to  be  an 
after-thpught.  The  removal  was  re 
solved  on  as  a  strong  measure  against 
the  bank;  and  now  that  it  has  been 
attended  with  consequences  not  at  all 
apprehended  from  it,  instead  of  being 
promptly  retracted,  as  it  should  have 
been,  it  is  to  be  justified  on  the  ground 
of  a  grand  experiment,  above  the  reach 
of  common' sagacity,  and  dropped  down, 
as  it  were,  from  the  clouds,  "  to  witch 
the  world  with  noble  policy."  It  is 
not  credible,  riot  possible,  Sir,  that,  six 
months  ago,  the  administration  sud 
denly  started  off  to  astonish  mankind 
with  its  new  inventions  in  politics,  and 
that  it  then  began  its  magnificent  project 
by  removing  the  deposits  as  its  first  op 
eration.  No,  Sir,  no  such  thing.  The 
removal  of  the  deposits  was  a  blow  at 
the  bank,  and  nothing  more;  and  if  it 
had  succeeded,  we  should  have  heard 
nothing  of  any  project  for  the  final  put 
ting  down  of  all  State  banks.  No,  Sir, 
not  one  word.  We  should  have  heard, 
on  the  contrary,  only  of  their  usefulness, 
their  excellence,  and  their  exact  adapta 
tion  to  the  uses  and  necessities  of  this 
government.  But  the  experiment  of 
making  successful  use  of  State  banks 
having  failed,  completely  failed,  in  this 
the  very  first  endeavor;  the  State  banks 
having  already  proved  themselves  not 
able  to  fill  the  place  arid  perform  the 
duties  of  a  national  bank,  although 
highly  useful  in  their  appropriate  sphere ; 
and  the  disastrous  consequences  of  the 
measures  of  government  corning  thick 
and  fast  upon  us,  the  professed  object  of 
the  whole  movement  is  at  once  changed, 
and  the  cry  now  is,  Down  with  all  the 
State  banks  !  Down  with  all  the  State 
banks !  and  let  us  return  to  our  embraces 
of  solid  gold  and  solid  silver ! 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  TTH 
OF  MAY,  1834,  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PROTEST  AGAINST 
THE  RESOLUTION  OF  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  28xH  OF  MARCH. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  I  feel  the  magni 
tude  of  this  question.  We  are  coming  to  a 
vote  which  cannot  fail  to  produce  impor 
tant  effects  on  the  character  of  the  Senate, 
and  the  character  of  the  government. 

Unhappily,  Sir,  the  Senate  finds  itself 
involved  in  a  controversy  with  the  Pres 
ident  of  the  United  States ;  a  man  who 
has  rendered  most  distinguished  services 
to. his  country,  who  has  hitherto  pos 
sessed  a  degree  of  popular  favor  per 
haps  never  exceeded,  and  whose  honesty 
of  motive  and  integrity  of  purpose  are 
still  admitted  by  those  who  maintain 
that  his  administration  has  fallen  into 
lamentable  errors. 

On  some  of  the  interesting  questions  in 
regard  to  which  the  President  and  Senate 
hold  opposite  opinions,  the  more  popular 
branch  of  the  legislature  concurs  with 
the  executive.  It  is  not  to  be  concealed 
that  the  Senate  is  engaged  against  im 
posing  odds.  It  can  sustain  itself  only 
by  its  own  prudence  and  the  justice  of 
its  cause.  It  has  no  patronage  by  which 
to  secure  friends ;  it  can  raise  up  no  ad 
vocates  through  the  dispensation  of  fa 
vors,  for  it  has  no  favors  to  dispense. 
Its  very  constitution,  as  a  body  whose 
members  are  elected  for  a  long  term,  is 
capable  of  being  rendered  obnoxious, 
and  is  daily  made  the  subject  of  oppro 
brious  remark.  It  is  already  denounced 
as  independent  of  the  people,  and  aris 
tocratic.  Nor  is  it,  like  the  other  house, 
powerful  in  its  numbers ;  not  being,  like 
that,  so  large  as  that  its  members  come 
constantly  in  direct  and  extensive  con 


tact  with  the  whole  people.  Under 
these  disadvantages,  Sir,  which,  we  may 
be  assured,  will  be  pressed  and  urged  to 
the  utmost  length ,  there  is  but  one  course 
for  us.  The  Senate  must  stand  on  its 
rendered  reasons.  It  must  put  forth  the 
grounds  of  its  proceedings,  and  it  must 
then  rely  on  the  intelligence  and  patri 
otism  of  the  people  to  carry  it  through 
the  contest. 

As  an  individual  member  of  the  Sen 
ate,  it  gives  me  great  pain  to  be  engaged 
in  such  a  conflict  with  the  executive 
government.  The  occurrences  of  the 
last  session  are  fresh  in  the  recollection 
of  all  of  us;  and  having  felt  it  to  be 
my  duty,  at  that  time,  to  give  my  cor 
dial  support  to  highly  important  meas 
ures  of  the  administration,  I  ardently 
hoped  that  nothing  might  occur  to  place 
me  afterwards  in  an  attitude  of  opposi 
tion.  In  all  respects,  and  in  every  way, 
it  would  have  been  far  more  agreeable 
to  me  to  find  nothing  in  the  measures  of 
the  executive  government  which  I  could 
not  cheerfully  support.  The  present 
occasion  of  difference  has  not  been 
sought  or  made  by  me.  It  is  thrust 
upon  me,  in  opposition  to  strong  opin 
ions  and  wishes,  on  my  part  not  con 
cealed.  The  interference  with  the  public 
deposits  dispelled  all  hope  of  continued 
concurrence  with  the  administration, 
and  was  a  measure  so  uncalled  for,  so 
unnecessary,  and,  in  my  judgment,  so 
illegal  and  indefensible,  that,  with  what 
ever  reluctance  it  might  be  opposed  by 
me,  opposition  was  unavoidable. 


368 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


The  paper  before  us  has  grown  out  of 
this  interference.  It  is  a  paper  which 
cannot  be  treated  with  indifference. 
The  doctrines  which  it  advances,  the 
circumstances  which  have  attended  its 
transmission  to  the  Senate,  and  the 
manner  in  which  the  Senate  may  now 
dispose  of  it,  will  form  a  memorable  era 
in  the  history  of  the  government.  We 
are  either  to  enter  it  on  our  journals, 
concur  in  its  sentiments,  and  submit  to 
its  rebuke,  or  we  must  answer  it,  with 
the  respect  due  to  the  chief  magistrate, 
but  with  such  animadversion  on  its  doc 
trines  as  they  deserve,  and  with  the 
firmness  imposed  upon  us  by  our  public 
duties. 

I  shall  proceed,  then,  Sir,  to  consider 
the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to 
this  Protest;  to  examine  the  principles 
which  it  attempts  to  establish;  and  to 
compare  those  principles  with  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  laws. 

On  the  28th  day  of  March,  the  Senate 
adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that,  "  in 
the  late  executive  proceedings  in  relation 
to  the  public  revenue,  the  President  had 
assumed  a  power  not  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  but  in  deroga 
tion  of  both."  In  that  resolution  I  con 
curred. 

It  is  not  a  direct  question,  now  again 
before  us,  whether  the  President  really 
had  assumed  such  illegal  power;  that 
point  is  decided,  so  far  as  the  Senate 
ever  can  decide  it.  But  the  Protest  de 
nies  that,  supposing  the  President  to 
have  assumed  such  illegal  power,  the 
Senate  could  properly  pass  the  resolu 
tion;  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  it  de 
nies  that  the  Senate  could,  in  this  way, 
express  any  opinion  about  it.  It  denies 
that  the  Senate  has  any  right,  by  reso 
lution,  in  this  or  any  other  case,  to  ex 
press  disapprobation  of  the  President's 
conduct,  let  that  conduct  be  what  it  may ; 
and  this,  one  of  the  leading  doctrines  of 
the  Protest,  I  propose  to  consider.  But 
as  I  concurred  in  the  resolution  of  the 
28th  of  March,  and  did  not  trouble  the 
Senate,  at  that  time,  with  any  statement 
of  my  own  reasons,  I  will  avail  myself 
of  this  opportunity  to  explain,  shortly, 
what  those  reasons  were. 


In  the  first  place,  then,  I  have  to  say, 
that  I  did  not  vote  for  the  resolution  on 
the  mere  ground  of  the  removal  of  Mr. 
Duane  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  Although  I  disapprove 
of  the  removal  altogether,  yet  the  power 
of  removal  does  exist  in  the  President, 
according  to  the  established  construction 
of  the  Constitution;  and  therefore,  al 
though  in  a  particular  case  it  may  be 
abused,  and,  in  my  opinion,  was  abused 
in  this  case,  yet  its  exercise  cannot  be 
justly  said  to  be  an  assumption  or  usur 
pation.  We  must  all  agree  that  Mr. 
Duane  is  out  of  office.  He  has,  there 
fore,  been  removed  by  a  power  con 
stitutionally  competent  to  remove  him, 
whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  exercise 
of  that  power  under  the  circumstances 
of  the  case. 

If,  then,  the  act  of  removing  the  Sec 
retary  be  not  the  assumption  of  power 
which  the  resolution  declares,  in  what  is 
that  assumption  foun-d?  Before  giving 
a  precise  answer  to  this  inquiry,  allow 
me  to  recur  to  some  of  the  principal 
previous  events. 

At  the  end  of  the  last  session  of  Con 
gress,  the  public  moneys  of  the  United 
States  were  still  in  their  proper  place. 
That  place  was  fixed  by  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  no  power  of  change  was  con 
ferred  on  any  other  human  being  than 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  On  him 
the  power  of  change  was  conferred,  to 
be  exercised  by  himself,  if  emergency 
should  arise,  and  to  be  exercised  for 
reasons  which  he  was  bound  to  lay  be 
fore  Congress.  No  other  officer  of  the 
government  had  the  slightest  pretence 
of  authority  to  lay  his  hand  on  these 
moneys  for  the  purpose  of  changing  the 
place  of  their  custody.  All  the  other 
heads  of  departments  together  could  not 
touch  them.  The  President  could  not 
touch  them.  The  power  of  change  was 
a  trust  confided  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Secretary,  and  to  his  discretion  alone. 
The  President  had  no  more  authority  to 
take  upon  himself  this  duty,  thus  as 
signed  expressly  by  law  to  the  Secretary, 
than  he  had  to  make  the  annual  report 
to  Congress,  or  the  annual  commercial 
statements,  or  to  perform  any  other  ser- 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


369 


vice  which  the  law  specially  requires  of 
the  Secretary.  He  might  just  as  well 
sign  the  warrants  for  moneys,  in  the  or 
dinary  daily  disbursements  of  govern 
ment,  instead  of  the  Secretary.  The 
statute  had  assigned  the  especial  duty  of 
removing  the  deposits,  if  removed  at 
all,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  to  him  alone.  The  consideration 
of  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  removal 
must  be  the  consideration  of  the  Secre 
tary;  the  decision  to  remove,  his  decis 
ion  ;  and  the  act  of  removal,  his  act. 

Now,  Sir,  on  the  18th  day  of  Septem 
ber  last,  a  resolution  was  taken  to  remove 
these  deposits  from  their  legislative,  that 
is  to  say,  their  legal  custody.  Whose 
resolution  was  this  ?  On  the  1st  of  Octo 
ber,  they  were  removed.  By  whose  power 
was  this  done  ?  The  papers  necessary 
to  accomplish  the  removal  (that  is,  the 
orders  and  drafts)  are,  it  is  true,  signed 
by  the  Secretary.  The  President's  name 
is  not  subscribed  to  them ;  nor  does  the 
Secretary,  in  any  of  them,  recite  or  de 
clare  that  he  does  the  act  by  direction 
of  the  President,  or  on  the  President's 
responsibility.  In  form,  the  whole  pro 
ceeding  is  the  proceeding  of  the  Secre 
tary,  and,  as  such,  had  the  legal  effect. 
The  deposits  were  removed.  But  whose 
act  was  it,  in  truth  and  reality?  Whose 
will  accomplished  it?  On  whose  re 
sponsibility  was  it  adopted? 

These  questions  are  all  explicitly  an 
swered  by  the  President  himself,  in  the 
paper,  under  his  own  hand,  read  to  the 
Cabinet  on  the  18th  of  September,  and 
published  by  his  authority.  In  this  pa 
per  the  President  declares,  in  so  many 
words,  that  he  begs  his  Cabinet  to  con 
sider  the  proposed  measure  as  his  own ; 
that  its  responsibility  has  been  assumed 
by  him ;  and  that  he  names  the  first  day 
of  October  as  a  period  proper  for  its 
execution. 

Now,  Sir,  it  is  precisely  this  which  I 
deem  an  assumption  of  power  not  con 
ferred  by  the  Constitution  and  laws. 
I  think  the  law  did  not  give  this  author- 
ity'to  the  President,  nor  impose  on  him 
the  responsibility  of  its  exercise.  It  is 
evident  that,  in  this  removal,  the  Sec 
retary  was  in  reality  nothing  but  the 


scribe;  he  was  the  pen  in  the  President's 
hand,  and  no  more.  Nothing  depended 
on  his  discretion,  his  judgment,  or  his 
responsibility.  The  removal,  indeed, 
has  been  admitted  and  defended  in  the 
Senate,  as  the  direct  act  of  the  Presi- 
*dent  himself.  This,  Sir,  is  what  I  call 
assumption  of  power.  If  the  President 
had  issued  an  order  for  the  removal  of 
the  deposits  in  his  own  name,  and  un 
der  his  own  hand,  it  would  have  been 
an  illegal  order,  and  the  bank  would 
not  have  been  at  liberty  to  obey  it.  For 
the  same  reason,  if  the  Secretary's  order 
had  recited  that  it  was  issued  by  the 
President's  direction,  and  on  the  Presi 
dent's  authority,  it  would  have  shown 
on  its  face  that  it  was  illegal  and  in 
valid.  No  one  can  doubt  that.  The 
act  of  removal,  to  be  lawful,  must  be 
the  bond  fide  act  of  the  Secretary;  his 
judgment,  the  result  of  his  deliberations, 
the  volition  of  his  mind.  All  are  able 
to  see  the  difference  between  the  power 
to  remove  the  Secretary  from  office,  and 
the  power  to  control  him,  in  all  or  any 
of  his  duties,  while  in  office.  The  law 
charges  the  officer,  whoever  he  may  be, 
with  the  performance  of  certain  duties. 
The  President,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Senate,  appoints  an  individual  to  be 
such  officer;  and  this  individual  he  may 
remove,  if  he  so  please;  but,  until  re 
moved,  he  is  the  officer,  and  remains 
charged  with  the  duties  of  his  station, 
duties  which  nobody  else  can  perform, 
and  for  the  neglect  or  violation  of  which 
he  is  liable  to  be  impeached. 

The  distinction  is  visible  and  broad 
between  the  power  of  removal  and  the 
power  to  control  an  officer  not  removed. 
The  President,  it  is  true,  may  termi 
nate  his  political  life;  but  he  cannot 
control  his  powers  and  functions,  and  act 
upon  him  as  a  mere  machine,  while  he 
is  allowed  to  live.  The  power  of  control 
and  direction,  nowhere  given,  certainly, 
by  any  express  provision  of  the  Consti 
tution  or  laws,  is  derived,  by  those  who 
maintain  it,  from  the  right  of  removal ; 
that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  constructive  power; 
it  has  no  express  warrant  in  the  Consti 
tution.  A  very  important  power,  then, 
is  raised  by  construction  in  the  first 


24 


370 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


place;  and  being  thus  raised,  it  becomes 
a  fountain  out  of  which  other  important 
powers,  raised  also  by  construction,  are 
to  be  supplied.  There  is  no  little  dan 
ger  that  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  may 
be  carried  too  far.  It  cannot  be  main 
tained  that  the  power  of  direct  control 
necessarily  flows  from  the  power  of  re 
moval.  Suppose  it  had  been  decided  in 
1789,  when  the  question  was  debated, 
that  the  President  does  not  possess  the 
power  of  removal ;  will  it  be  contended, 
that,  in  that  case,  his  right  of  interfer 
ence  with  the  acts  and  duties  of  execu 
tive  officers  would  be  less  than  it  now 
is?  The  reason  of  the  thing  would 
seem  to  be  the  other  way.  If  the  Presi 
dent  may  remove  an  incumbent  when 
he  becomes  satisfied  of  his  unfaithful 
ness  and  incapacity,  there  would  appear 
to  be  less  necessity  to  give  him  also  a 
right  of  control,  than  there  would  be  if 
he  could  not  remove  him. 

We  may  try  this  question  by  suppos 
ing  it  to  arise  in  a  judicial  proceeding. 
If  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  were 
impeached  for  removing  the  deposits, 
could  he  justify  himself  by  saying  that 
he  did  it  by  the  President's  direction? 
If  he  could,  then  no  executive  officer 
could  ever  be  impeached  who  obeys  the 
President;  and  the  whole  notion  of  mak 
ing  such  officers  impeachable  at  all 
would  be  farcical.  If  he  could  not  so 
justify  himself ,  (and  all  will  allow  he 
could  not,)  the  reason  can  only  be  that 
the  act  of  removal  is  his  own  act;  the 
power,  a  power  confided  to  him,  for  the 
just  exercise  of  which  the  law  looks  to 
his  discretion,  his  honesty,  and  his  di 
rect  responsibility. 

Now,  Sir,  the  President  wishes  the 
world  to  understand  that  he  himself 
decided  on  the  question  of  the  removal 
of  the  deposits ;  that  he  took  the  whole 
responsibility  of  the  measure  upon  him 
self  ;  that  he  wished  it  to  be  considered 
his  own  act;  that  he  not  only  himself 
decided  that  the  thing  should  be  done, 
but  regulated  its  details  also,  and  named 
the  day  for  carrying  it  into  effect. 

I  have  always  entertained  a  very  erro 
neous  view  of  the  partition  of  powers, 
and  of  the  true  nature  of  official  respon 


sibility  under  our  Constitution,  if  this 
be  not  a  plain  case  of  the  assumption 
of  power. 

The  legislature  had  fixed  a  place,  by 
law,  for  the  keeping  of  the  public 
money.  They  had,  at  the  same  time 
and  by  the  same  law,  created  and  con 
ferred  a  power  of  removal,  to  be  exer 
cised  contingently.  This  power  they 
had  vested  in  the  Secretary,  by  express 
words.  The  law  did  not  say  that  the 
deposits  should  be  made  in  the  bank, 
unless  the  President  should  order  other 
wise;  but  it  did  say  that  they  should 
be  made  there,  unless  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  should  order  otherwise.  I 
put  it  to  the  plain  sense  and  common 
candor  of  all  men,  whether  the  dis 
cretion  thus  to  be  exercised  over  the 
subject  was  not  the  Secretary's  own 
personal  discretion;  and  whether,  there 
fore,  the  interposition  of  the  authority 
of  another,  acting  directly  and  conclu 
sively  on  the  subject,  deciding  the  whole 
question,  even  in  its  particulars  and  de 
tails,  be  not  an  assumption  of  power? 

The  Senate  regarded  this  interposition 
as  an  encroachment  by  the  executive 
on  other  branches  of  the  government; 
as  an  interference  with  the  legislative 
disposition  of  the  public  treasure.  It 
was  strongly  and  forcibly  urged,  yester 
day,  by  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina,  that  the  true  and  only 
mode  of  preserving  any  balance  of 
power,  in  mixed  governments,  is  to 
keep  an  exact  balance.  This  is  very 
true,  and  to  this  end  encroachment  must 
be  resisted  at  the  first  step.  The  ques 
tion  is,  therefore,  whether,  upon  the 
true  principles  of  the  Constitution,  this 
exercise  of  power  by  the  President  can 
be  justified.  Whether  the  consequen 
ces  be  prejudicial  or  not,  if  there  be  an 
illegal  exercise  of  power,  it  is  to  be 
resisted  in  the  proper  manner.  Even  if 
no  harm  or  inconvenience  result  from 
transgressing  the  boundary,  the  intru 
sion  is  not  to  be  suffered  to  pass  un 
noticed.  Every  encroachment,  great  or 
small,  is  important  enough  to  awaken 
the  attention  of  those  who  are  intrustfid 
with  the  preservation  of  a  constitutional 
rovernment.  We  are  not  to  wait  till 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


371 


great  public  mischiefs  come,  till  the  gov 
ernment  is  overthrown,  or  liberty  itself 
put  into  extreme  jeopardy.  We  should 
riot  be  worthy  sons  of  our  fathers  were 
we  so  to  regard  great  questions  affecting 
the  general  freedom.  Those  fathers 
accomplished  the  Revolution  on  a  strict 
question  of  principle.  The  Parliament 
of  Great  Britain  asserted  a  right  to  tax 
the  Colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever; 
and  it  was  precisely  on  this  question 
that  they  made  the  Revolution  turn. 
The  amount  of  taxation  was  trifling, 
but  the  claim  itself  was  inconsistent 
with  liberty ;  and  that  was,  in  their  eyes, 
enough.  It  was  against  the  recital  of 
an  act  of  Parliament,  rather  than 
against  any  suffering  under  its  enact 
ments,  that  they  took  up  arms.  They 
went  to  war  against  a  preamble.  They 
fought  seven  years  against  a  declaration. 
They  poured  out  their  treasures  and  their 
blood  like  water,  in  a  contest  against  an 
assertion  which  those  less  sagacious  and 
not  so  well  schooled  in  the  principles  of 
civil  liberty  would  have  regarded  as 
barren  phraseology,  or  mere  parade  of 
words.  They  saw  in  the  claim  of  the 
British  Parliament  a  seminal  principle 
of  mischief,  the  germ  of  unjust  power; 
they  detected  it,  dragged  it  forth  from 
underneath  its  plausible  disguises,  struck 
at  it ;  nor  did  it  elude  either  their  steady 
eye  or  their  well-directed  blow  till  they 
had  extirpated  and  destroyed  it,  to  the 
smallest  fibre.  On  this  question  of 
principle,  while  actual  suffering  was 
yet  afar  off,  they  raised  their  flag  against 
a  power,  to  which,  for  purposes  of  for 
eign  conquest  and  subjugation,  Rome, 
in  the  height  of  her  glory,  is  not  to  be 
compared;  a  power  which  has  dotted 
over  the  surface  of  the  whole  globe 
with  her  possessions  and  military  posts, 
whose  morning  drum-beat,  following 
the  sun,  and  keeping  company  with  the 
hours,  circles  the  earth  with  one  contin 
uous  and  unbroken  strain  of  the  martial 
airs  of  England. 

The  necessity  of  holding  strictly  to 
the  principle  upon  which  free  govern 
ments  are  constructed,  and  to  those  pre 
cise  lines  which  fix  the  partitions  of 
power  between  different  branches,  is  as 


plain,  if  not  as  cogent,  as  that  of  resist 
ing,  as  cur  fathers  did,  the  strides  of 
the  parent  country  against  the  rights 
of  the  Colonies;  because,  whether  the 
power  which  exceeds  its  just  limits  be 
foreign  or  domestic,  whether  it  be  the 
encroachment  of  all  branches  on  the 
rights  of  the  people,  or  that  of  one 
branch  on  the  rights  of  others,  in  either 
case  the  balanced  and  well-adjusted 
machinery  of  free  government  is  dis 
turbed,  and,  if  the  derangement  go  on, 
the  whole  system  must  fall. 

But  the  case  before  us  is  not  a  case  of 
merely  theoretic  infringement;  nor  is  it 
one  of  trifling  importance.  Far  other 
wise.  It  respects  one  of  the  highest  and 
most  important  of  all  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment;  that  is  to  say,  the  custody  and 
control  of  the  public  money.  The  act 
of  removing  the  deposits,  which  I  now 
consider  as  the  President's  act,  and 
which  his  friends  on  this  floor  defend  as 
his  act,  took  the  national  purse  from 
beneath  the  security  and  guardianship 
of  the  law,  and  disposed  of  its  contents, 
in  parcels,  in  such  places  of  deposit  as 
he  chose  to  select.  At  this  very  mo 
ment,  every  dollar  of  the  public  treasure 
is  subject,  so  far  as  respects  its  custody 
and  safe-keeping,  to  his  unlimited  con 
trol.  We  know  not  where  it  is  to-day; 
still  less  do  we  know  where  it  may  be 
to-morrow. 

But,  Mr.  President,  this  is  not  all. 
There  is  another  part  of  the  case,  which 
has  not  been  so  much  discussed,  but 
which  appears  to  me  to  be  still  more  in 
defensible  in  its  character.  It  is  some 
thing  which  may  well  teach  us  the 
tendency  of  power  to  move  forward 
with  accelerated  pace,  if  it  be  allowed 
to  take  the  first  step.  The  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  in  addition  to  the  ser 
vices  rendered  to  the  treasury,  gave  for 
its  charter,  and  for  the  use  of  the  public 
deposits,  a  bonus  or  outright  sum  of  one 
million  and  a  half  of  dollars.  This 
sum  was  paid  by  the  bank  into  the 
treasury  soon  after  the  commencement 
of  its  charter.  In  the  act  which  passed 
both  houses  for  renewing  the  charter, 
in  1832,  it  was  provided  that  the  bank, 
for  the  same  consideration,  should  pay 


372 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


two  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year 
during  the  period  for  which  it  was  pro 
posed  to  renew  it.  A  similar  provision 
is  in  the  bill  which  I  asked  leave  to  in 
troduce  some  weeks  ago.  Now,  Sir,  this 
shows  that  the  custody  of  the  deposits 
is  a  benefit  for  which  a  bank  may  well 
afford  to  pay  a  large  annual  sum.  The 
banks  which  now  hold  the  deposits  pay 
nothing  to  the  public;  they  give  no 
bonus,  they  pay  no  annuity.  But  this 
loss  of  so  much  money  is  not  the  worst 
part  of  the  case,  nor  that  which  ought 
most  to  alarm  us.  Although  they  pay 
nothing  to  the  public,  they  do  pay, 
nevertheless,  such  sums,  and  for  such 
uses,  as  may  be  agreed  upon  between 
themselves  and  the  executive  govern 
ment.  We  are  officially  informed  that 
an  officer  is  appointed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  inspect  or  superin 
tend  these  selected  banks;  and  this 
officer  is  compensated  by  a  salary  fixed 
by  the  executive,  agreed  to  by  the 
banks,  and  paid  by  them.  I  ask,  Sir, 
if  there  can  be  a  more  irregular  or 
a  more  illegal  transaction  than  this? 
Whose  money  is  it  out  of  which  this 
salary  is  paid?  Is  it  not  money  justly 
due  to  the  United  States,  and  paid,  be 
cause  it  is  so  due,  for  the  advantage  of 
holding  the  deposits?  If  a  dollar  is  re 
ceived  on  that  account,  is  not  its  only 
true  destination  into  the  general  treas 
ury  of  the  government?  And  who  has 
authority,  without  law,  to  create  an 
office,  to  fix  a  salary,  and  to  pay  that 
salary  out  of  this  money?  Here  is  an 
inspector  or  supervisor  of  the  deposit 
banks.  But  what  law  has  provided  for 
such  an  officer?  What  commission  has 
he  received?  Who  concurred  in  his 
appointment?  What  oath  does  he 
take?  How  is  he  to  be  punished  or 
impeached  if  he  colludes  with  any  of 
these  banks  to  embezzle  the  public 
money  or  defraud  the  government? 
The  value  of  the  use  of  this  public 
money  to  the  deposit  banks  is  probably 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year; 
or,  if  less  than  that,  it  is  yet,  certainly, 
a  very  great  sum.  May  the  President 
appoint  whatever  officers  he  pleases, 
with  whatever  duties  he  pleases,  and 


pay  them  as  much  as  he  pleases,  out  of 
the  moneys  thus  paid  by  the  banks,  for 
the  saka  of  having  the  deposits? 

Mr.  President,  the  executive  claim  of 
power  is  exactly  this,  that  the  President 
may  keep  the  money  of  the  public  in 
whatever  banks  he  chooses,  on  whatever 
terms  he  chooses,  and  apply  the  sums 
which  these  banks  are  willing  to  pay 
for  its  use  to  whatever  purposes  he 
chooses.  These  sums  are  not  to  come 
into  the  general  treasury.  They  are  to 
be  appropriated  before  they  get  there ; 
they  are  never  to  be  brought  under  the 
control  of  Congress ;  they  are  to  be  paid 
to  officers  and  agents  not  known  to  the 
law,  not  nominated  to  the  Senate,  and 
responsible  to  nobody  but  the  executive 
itself.  I  ask  gentlemen  if  all  this  be 
lawful.  Are  they  prepared  to  defend 
it?  Will  they  stand  up  and  justify  it? 
In  my  opinion,  Sir,  it  is  a  clear  and 
most  dangerous  assumption  of  power. 
It  is  the  creation  of  office  without  law ; 
the  appointment  to  office  without  con 
sulting  the  Senate ;  the  establishment  of 
a  salary  without  law ;  and  the  payment 
of  that  salary  out  of  a  fund  which  it 
self  is  derived  from  the  use  of  the  public 
treasures.  This,  Sir,  is  rny  other  reason 
for  concurring  in  the  vote  of  the  28th 
of  March ;  and  on  these  grounds  I  leave 
the  propriety  of  that  vote,  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned  with  it,  to  be  judged  of 
by  the  country. 

But,  Sir,  the  President  denies  the 
power  of  the  Senate  to  pass  any  such 
resolution,  on  any  ground  whatever. 
Suppose  the  declaration  contained  in 
the  resolution  to  be  true;  suppose  the 
President  had,  in  fact,  assumed  powers 
not  granted  to  him;  does  the  Senate 
possess  the  right  to  declare  its  opinion, 
affirming  this  fact,  or  does  it  not?  I 
maintain  that  the  Senate  does  possess 
such  a  power;  the  President  denies  it. 

Mr.  President,  we  need  not  look  far, 
nor  search  deep,  for  the  foundation  of 
this  right  in  the  Senate.  It  is  close  at 
hand,  and  clearly  visible.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  the  right  of  self-defence.  In 
the  second  place,  it  is  a  right  founded 
on  the  duty  of  representative  bodies,  in 
a  free  government,  to  defend  the  public 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


373 


liberty  against  encroachment.  We  must 
presume  that  the  Senate  honestly  enter 
tained  the  opinion  expressed  in  the  res 
olution  of  the  28th  of  March;  and, 
entertaining  that  opinion,  its  right  to 
express  it  is  but  the  necessary  conse 
quence  of  its  right  to  defend  its  own 
constitutional  authority,  as  one  branch  of 
the  government.  This  is  its  clear  right, 
and  this,  too,  is  its  imperative  duty. 

If  one  or  both  the  other  branches 
of  the  government  happen  to  do  that 
which  appears  to  us  inconsistent  with 
the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Senate, 
will  any  one  say  that  the  Senate  is  yet 
bound  to  be  passive,  and  to  be  silent? 
to  do  nothing,  and  to  say  nothing?  Or, 
if  one  branch  appears  to  encroach  on 
the  rights  of  the  other  two,  have  these 
two  no  power  of  remonstrance,  com 
plaint,  or  resistance?  Sir,  the  question 
may  be  put  in  a  still  more  striking  form. 
Has  the  Senate  a  right  to  have  an  opinion 
in  a  case  of  this  kind?  If  it  may  have 
an  opinion,  how  is  that  opinion  to  be 
ascertained  but  by  resolution  and  vote? 
The  objection  must  go  the  whole  length ; 
it  must  maintain  that  the  Senate  has  not 
only  no  right  to  express  opinions,  but  no 
right  to  form  opinions,  on  the  conduct 
of  the  executive  government,  though  in 
matters  intimately  affecting  the  powers 
and  duties  of  the  Senate  itself.  It  is 
not  possible,  Sir,  that  such  a  doctrine 
can  be  maintained  for  a  single  moment. 
All  political  bodies  resist  what  they 
deem  encroachments  by  resolutions  ex 
pressive  of  their  sentiments,  and  their 
purpose  to  resist  such  encroachments. 
When  such  a  resolution  is  presented  for 
its  consideration,  the  question  is,  whether 
it  be  true ;  not  whether  the  body  has  au 
thority  to  pass  it,  admitting  it  to  be  true. 
The  Senate,  like  other  public  bodies,  is 
perfectly  justifiable  in  defending,  in  this 
mode,  either  its  legislative  or  executive 
authority.  The  usages  of  Parliament, 
the  practice  in  our  State  legislatures  and 
assemblies,  both  before  and  since  the 
Revolution,  and  precedents  in  the  Senate 
itself,  fully  maintain  this  right.  The 
case  of  the  Panama  mission  is  in  point. 
In  that  case,  Mr.  Branch,  from  North 
Carolina,  introduced  a  resolution,  which, 


after  reciting  that  the  President,  in  his 
annual  message  and  in  his  communica 
tion  to  the  Senate,  had  asserted  that  he 
possessed  an  authority  to  make  certain 
appointments,  although  the  appointments 
had  not  been  made,  went  on  to  declare  that 
*'  a  silent  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  this 
body  may,  at  some  future  time,  be  drawn 
into  dangerous  precedent ' '  /  and  to  re 
solve,  therefore,  that  the  President  does 
not  possess  the  right  or  power  said  to  be 
claimed  by  him.  This  resolution  was 
discussed,  and  finally  laid  on  the  table. 
But  the  question  discussed  was,  whether 
the  resolution  was  correct,  in  fact  and 
principle;  not  whether  the  Senate  had 
any  right  to  pass  such  resolution.  So 
far  as  I  remember,  no  one  pretended 
that,  if  the  President  had  exceeded  his 
authority,  the  Senate  might  not  so  de 
clare  by  resolution.  No  one  ventured 
to  contend  that,  whether  the  rights  of 
the  Senate  were  invaded  or  not,  the  Sen 
ate  must  hold  its  peace. 

The  Protest  labors  strenuously  to  show 
that  the  Senate  adopted  the  resolution  of 
the  28th  of  March,  under  its  judicial  au 
thority.  The  reason  of  this  attempt  is 
obvious  enough.  If  the  Senate,  in  its 
judicial  character,  has  been  trying  the 
President,  then  he  has  not  had  a  regular 
and  formal  trial;  and,  on  that  ground, 
it  is  hoped  the  public  sympathy  may  be 
moved.  But  the  Senate  has  acted  not 
in  its  judicial,  but  in  its  legislative 
capacity.  As  a  legislative  body,  it  has 
defended  its  own  just  authority,  and 
the  authority  of  the  other  branch  of  the 
legislature.  Whatever  attacks  our  own 
rights  and  privileges,  or  whatever  en 
croaches  on  the  power  of  both  houses, 
we  may  oppose  and  resist,  by  declara 
tion,  resolution,  or  other  similar  pro 
ceedings.  If  we  look  to  the  books  of 
precedents,  if  we  examine  the  journals 
of  legislative  bodies,  we  find  everywhere 
instances  of  such  proceedings. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  Sir,  that  the 
Protest  imposes  silence  on  the  House  of 
Representatives  as  well  as  on  the  Senate. 
It  declares  that  no  power  is  conferred  on 
either  branch  of  the  legislature,  to  con 
sider  or  decide  upon  official  acts  of  the 
executive,  for  the  purpose  of  censure, 


374 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


and  without  a  view  to  legislation  or  im 
peachment.  This,  I  think,  Sir,  is  pretty 
high-toned  pretension.  According  to  this 
doctrine,  neither  house  could  assert  its 
own  rights,  however  the  executive  might 
assail  them;  neither  house  could  point 
out  the  danger  to  the  people,  however 
fast  executive  encroachment  might  be 
extending  itself,  or  whatever  danger  it 
might  threaten  to  the  public  liberties. 
If  the  two  houses  of  Congress  may  not 
express  an  opinion  of  executive  con 
duct  by  resolution,  there  is  the  same 
reason  why  they  should  not  express  it 
in  any  other  form,  or  by  any  other 
mode  of  proceeding.  Indeed,  the  Pro 
test  limits  both  houses,  expressly,  to  the 
case  of  impeachment.  If  the  House  of 
Representatives  are  not  about  to  im 
peach  the  President,  they  have  nothing 
to  say  of  his  measures  or  of  his  conduct; 
and  unless  the  Senate  are  engaged  in 
trying  an  impeachment,  their  mouths, 
too,  are  stopped.  It  is  the  practice  of 
the  President  to  send  us  an  annual  mes 
sage,  in  which  he  rehearses  the  general 
proceedings  of  the  executive  for  the 
past  year.  This  message  we  refer  to 
our  committees  for  consideration.  But, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Protest, 
they  can  express  no  opinion  upon  any 
executive  proceeding  upon  which  it  gives 
information.  Suppose  the  President  had 
told  us,  in  his  last  annual  message,  what 
he  had  previously  told  us  in  his  cabinet 
paper,  that  the  removal  of  the  deposits 
was  his  act,  done  on  his  responsibility; 
and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
had  exercised  no  discretion,  formed  no 
judgment,  presumed  to  have  no  opinion 
whatever,  on  the  subject.  This  part  of 
the  message  would  have  been  referred  to 
the  committee  on  finance ;  but  what 
could  they  say?  They  think  it  shows  a 
plain  violation  of  the  Constitution  arid 
the  laws;  but  the  President  is  not  im 
peached  ;  therefore  they  can  express  no 
censure.  They  think  it  a  direct  inva 
sion  of  legislative  power,  but  they  must 
not  say  so.  They  may,  indeed,  com 
mend,  if  they  can.  The  grateful  busi 
ness  of  praise  is  lawful  to  them ;  but  if, 
instead  of  commendation  and  applause, 
they  find  cause  for  disapprobation,  cen 


sure,  or  alarm,  the  Protest  enjoins  upon 
them  absolute  silence. 

Formerly,  Sir,  it  was  a  practice  for  the 
President  to  meet  both  houses,  at  the 
opening  of  the  session,  and  deliver  a 
speech,  as  is  still  the  usage  of  some  of 
the  State  legislatures.  To  this  speech 
there  was  an  answer  from  each  house, 
and  those  answers  expressed,  freely,  the 
sentiments  of  the  house  upon  all  the 
merits  and  faults  of  the  administra 
tion.  The  discussion  of  the  topics  con 
tained  in  the  speech,  and  the  debate 
on  the  answers,  usually  drew  out  the 
whole  force  of  parties,  and  lasted  some 
times  a  week.  President  Washington's 
conduct,  in  every  year  of  his  admin 
istration,  was  thus  freely  and  publicly 
canvassed.  He  did  not  complain  of  it; 
he  did  not  doubt  that  both  houses  had  a 
perfect  right  to  comment,  with  the  ut 
most  latitude,  consistent  with  decorum, 
upon  all  his  measures.  Answers,  or 
amendments  to  answers,  were  not  un- 
frequently  proposed,  very  hostile  to  his 
own  course  of  public  policy,  if  not  some 
times  bordering  on  disrespect.  And 
when  they  did  express  respect  and  re 
gard,  there  were  votes  ready  to  be  re 
corded  against  the  expression  of  those 
sentiments.  To  all  this  President  Wash 
ington  took  no  exception;  for  he  well 
knew  that  these,  and  similar  proceed 
ings,  belonged  to  the  power  of  popular 
bodies.  But  if  the  President  were  now 
to  meet  us  with  a  speech,  and  should  in 
form  us  of  measures,  adopted  by  him 
self  in  the  recess,  which  should  appear 
to  us  the  most  plain,  palpable,  and  dan 
gerous  violations  of  the  Constitution,  we 
must,  nevertheless,  either  keep  respect 
ful  silence,  or  fill  our  answer  merely  with 
courtly  phrases  of  approbation. 

Mr.  President,  I  know  not  who  wrote 
this  Protest,  but  I  confess  I  am  aston 
ished,  truly  astonished,  as  well  at  the 
want  of  knowledge  which  it  displays  of 
constitutional  law,  as  at  the  high  and 
dangerous  pretensions  which  it  puts 
forth.  Neither  branch  of  the  legisla 
ture  can  express  censure  upon  the  Presi 
dent's  conduct!  Suppose,  Sir,  that  we 
should  see  him  enlisting  troops  and  rais 
ing  an  army,  can  we  say  nothing,  and 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


375 


do  nothing?  Suppose  he  were  to  declare 
war  against  a  foreign  power,  and  put 
the  army  and  the  fleet  in  action;  are  we 
still  to  be  silent?  Suppose  we  should  see 
him  borrowing  money  on  the  credit  of 
the  United  States;  are  we  yet  to  wait 
for  impeachment?  Indeed,  Sir,  in  re 
gard  to  this  borrowing  money  on  the 
credit  of  the  United  States,  I  wish  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Senate,  not 
only  to  what  might  happen,  but  to  what 
has  actually  happened.  We  are  in 
formed  that  the  Post-Office  Department, 
a  department  over  which  the  President 
claims  the  same  control  as  over  the  rest, 
has  actually  borroived  near  half  a  million  of 
money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  President,  the  first  power  granted 
to  Congress  by  the  Constitution  is  the 
power  to  lay  taxes;  the  second,  the 
power  to  borrow  money  on  the  credit 
of  the  United  States.  Now,  Sir,  where 
does  the  executive  find  its  authority,  in 
or  through  any  department,  to  borrow 
money  without  authority  of  Congress  ? 
This  proceeding  appears  to  me  wholly 
illegal,  and  reprehensible  in  a  very  high 
degree.  It  may  be  said  that  it  is  not 
true  that  this  money  is  borrowed  on  the 
credit  of  the  United  States,  but  that  it 
is  borrowed  on  the  credit  of  the  Post- 
Oflice  Department.  But  that  would  be 
mere  evasion.  The  department  is  but  a 
name.  It  is  an  office,  and  nothing  more. 
The  banks  have  not  lent  this  money  to 
any  officer.  If  Congress  should  abolish 
the  whole  department  to-morrow,  would 
the  banks  not  expect  the  United  States 
to  replace  this  borrowed  money?  The 
money,  then,  is  borrowed  on  the  credit 
of  the  United  States,  an  act  which  Con 
gress  alone  is  competent  to  authorize. 
If  the  Post-Office  Department  may  bor 
row  money,  so  may  the  War  Department 
and  the  Navy  Department.  If  half  a 
million  may  be  borrowed,  ten  millions 
may  be  borrowed.  What,  then,  if  this 
transaction  shall  be  justified,  is  to  hinder 
the  executive  from  borrowing  money  to 
maintain  fleets  and  armies,  or  for  any 
other  purpose,  at  his  pleasure,  without 
any  authority  of  law?  Yet  even  this, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Protest, 
we  have  no  right  to  complain  of.  We 


have  no  right  to  declare  that  an  execu 
tive  department  has  violated  the  Consti 
tution  and  broken  the  law,  by  borrowing 
money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States. 
Nor  could  we  make  a  similar  declara 
tion,  if  we  were  to  see  the  executive,  by 
means  of  this  borrowed  money,  enlist 
ing  armies  and  equipping  fleets.  And 
yet,  Sir,  the  President  has  found  no  diffi 
culty,  heretofore,  in  expressing  his  opin 
ions,  in  a  paper  not  called  for  by  the  exer 
cise  of  any  official  duty,  upon  the  conduct 
and  proceedings  of  the  two  houses  of 
Congress.  At  the  commencement  of 
this  session,  he  sent  us  a  message,  com 
menting  on  the  land  bill  w'hich  the  two 
houses  passed  at  the  end  of  the  last  ses 
sion.  That  bill  he  had  not  approved, 
nor  had  he  returned  it  with  objections. 
Congress  was  dissolved;  and  the  bill, 
therefore,  wras  completely  dead,  and 
could  not  be  revived.  No  communica 
tion  from  him  could  have  the  least  pos 
sible  effect  as  an  official  act.  Yet  he 
saw  fit  to  send  a  message  on  the  subject, 
and  in  that  message  he  very  freely  de 
clares  his  opinion  that  the  bill  which 
had  passed  both  houses  began  with  an 
entire  subversion  of  every  one  of  the  com 
pacts  by  ivhich  the  United  States  became 
possessed  of  their  Western  domain;  that 
one  of  its  provisions  teas  in  direct  and 
undisguised  violation  of  the  pledge  given 
by  Congress  to  the  States ;  that  the  Con 
stitution  provides  that  these  compacts 
shall  be  untouched  by  the  legislative 
power,  which  can  only  make  needful 
rules  and  regulations;  and  that  all  be 
yond  that  is  an  assumption  of  undelegated 
power. 

These  are  the  terms  in  which  the  Pres 
ident  speaks  of  an  act  of  the  two  houses ; 
not  in  an  official  paper,  not  in  a  com 
munication  which  it  was  necessary  for 
him  to  make  to  them ;  but  in  a  message, 
adopted  only  as  a  mode  through  which 
to  make  public  these  opinions.  After 
this,  it  would  seem  too  late  to  enjoin  on 
the  houses  of  Congress  a  total  forbear 
ance  from  all  comment  on  the  measures 
of  the  executive. 

Not  only  is  it  the  right  of  both  houses, 
or  of  either,  to  resist,  by  vote,  declara 
tion,  or  resolution,  whatever  it  may 


376 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


deem  an  encroachment  of  executive 
power,  but  it  is  also  undoubtedly  the 
right  of  either  house  to  oppose,  in  like 
manner,  any  encroachment  by  the  other. 
The  two  houses  have  each  its  own  appro 
priate  powers  and  authorities,  which  it 
is  bound  to  preserve.  They  have,  too, 
different  constituents.  The  members  of 
the  Senate  are  representatives  of  States ; 
and  it  is  in  the  Senate  alone  that  the 
i'our-and- twenty  States,  as  political  bod 
ies,  have  a  direct  influence  in  the  legis 
lative  and  executive  powers  of  this  gov 
ernment.  He  is  a  strange  advocate  of 
State  rights,  who  maintains  that  this 
body,  thus  representing  the  States,  and 
thus  being  the  strictly  federal  branch  of 
the  legislature,  may  not  assert  and  main 
tain  all  and  singular  its  own  powers  and 
privileges,  against  either  or  both  of  the 
other  branches. 

If  any  thing  be  done  or  threatened 
derogatory  to  the  rights  of  the  States,  as 
secured  by  the  organization  of  the  Sen 
ate,  may  we  not  lift  up  our  voices  against 
it?  Suppose  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  should  vote  that  the  Senate  ought 
not  to  propose  amendments  to  revenue 
bills ;  would  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Senate 
to  take  no  notice  of  such  proceeding? 
Or,  if  we  were  to  see  the  President  issu 
ing  commissions  to  office  to  persons  who 
had  never  been  nominated  to  the  Senate, 
are  we  not  to  remonstrate? 

Sir,  there  is  no  end  of  cases,  no  end  of 
illustrations.  The  doctrines  of  the  Pro 
test,  in  this  respect,  cannot  stand  the 
slightest  scrutiny ;  they  are  blown  away 
by  the  first  breath  of  discussion. 

And  yet,  Sir,  it  is  easy  to  perceive 
why  this  right  of  declaring  its  sentiments 
respecting  the  conduct  of  the  executive 
is  denied  to  either  house,  in  its  legisla 
tive  capacity.  It  is  merely  that  the 
Seriate  might  be  presented  in  the  odious 
light  of  trying  the  President,  judicially, 
without  regular  accusation  or  hearing. 
The  Protest  declares  that  the  President 
is  charged  with  a  crime,  and,  without  hear 
ing  or  trial,  found  guilty  and  condemned. 
This  is  evidently  an  attempt  to  appeal 
to  popular  feeling,  and  to  represent  the 
President  as  unjustly  treated  and  un 
fairly  tried  Sir,  it  is  a  false  appeal. 


The  President  has  not  been  tried  at 
all;  he  has  not  been  accused;  he  has 
not  been  charged  with  crime;  he  has 
not  been  condemned.  Accusation,  trial, 
and  sentence  are  terms  belonging  to 
judicial  proceedings.  But  the  Senate 
has  been  engaged  in  no  such  pro 
ceeding.  The  resolution  of  the  28th  of 
March  was  not  an  exercise  of  judicial 
power,  either  in  form,  in  substance,  or 
in  intent.  Everybody  knows  that  the 
Senate  can  exercise  no  judicial  power  un 
til  articles  of  impeachment  are  brought 
before  it.  It  is  then  to  proceed,  by  ac 
cusation  and  answer,  hearing,  trial,  and 
judgment.  But  there  has  been  no  im 
peachment,  no  answer,  no  hearing,  no 
judgment.  All  that  the  Senate  did  was 
to  pass  a  resolution,  in  legislative  form, 
declaring  its  opinion  of  certain  acts  of 
the  executive.  This  resolution  imputed 
no  crime ;  it  charged  no  corrupt  motive ; 
it  proposed  no  punishment.  It  was  di 
rected,  not  against  the  President  person 
ally,  but  against  the  act;  and  that  act 
it  declared  to  be,  in  its  judgment,  an  as 
sumption  of  authority  not  warranted  by 
the  Constitution. 

It  is  in  vain  that  the  Protest  attempts 
to  shift  the  resolution  to  the  judicial 
character  of  the  Senate.  The  case  is  too 
plain  for  such  an  argument  to  be  plausi 
ble.  But,  in  order  to  lay  some  founda 
tion  for  it,  the  Protest,  as  I  have  already 
said,  contends  that  neither  the  Senate 
nor  the  House  of  Representatives  can  ex 
press  its  opinions  on  the  conduct  of  the 
President,  except  in  some  form  con 
nected  with  impeachment ;  so  that  if  the 
power  of  impeachment  did  not  exist, 
these  two  houses,  though  they  be  repre 
sentative  bodies,  though  one  of  them  be 
filled  by  the  immediate  representatives 
of  the  people,  though  they  be  constituted 
like  other  popular  and  representative 
bodies,  could  not  utter  a  syllable,  al 
though  they  saw  the  executive  either 
trampling  on  their  own  rights  and  priv 
ileges,  or  grasping  at  absolute  authority 
and  dominion  over  the  liberties  of  the 
country!  Sir,  I  hardly  know  how  to 
speak  of  such  claims  of  impunity  for 
executive  encroachment.  I  am  amazed 
that  any  American  citizen  should  draw 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


377 


up  a  paper  containing  such  lofty  pre 
tensions  ;  pretensions  which  would  have 
been  met  with  scorn  in  England,  at  any 
time  since  the  Revolution  of  1688.  A 
man  who  should  stand  up,  in  either 
house  of  the  British  Parliament,  to  main 
tain  that  the  house  could  not,  by  vote  or  ' 
resolution,  maintain  its  own  rights  and 
privileges,  would  make  even  the  Tory 
benches  hang  their  heads  for  very  shame. 

There  was,  indeed,  a  time  when  such 
proceedings  were  not  allowed.  Some  of 
the  kings  of  the  Stuart  race  would  not 
tolerate  them.  A  signal  instance  of 
royal  displeasure  with  the  proceedings 
of  Parliament  occurred  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  James  the  First.  The 
House  of  Commons  had  spoken,  on 
some  occasion,  "of  its  own  undoubted 
rights  and  privileges."  The  king  there 
upon  sent  them  a  letter,  declaring  that 
he  would  not  allow  that  they  had  any  un 
doubted  rights;  but  that  what  they  enjoyed 
they  might  still  hold  by  his  own  royal  grace 
and  permission.  Sir  Edward  Coke  and 
Mr.  Granville  were  not  satisfied  with 
this  title  to  their  privileges ;  and,  under 
their  lead,  the  house  entered  on  its  jour 
nals  a  resolution  asserting  its  privileges, 
as  its  own  undoubted  right,  and  manifest 
ing  a  determination  to  maintain  them  as 
such.  This,  says  the  historian,  so  en 
raged  his  Majesty,  that  he  sent  for  the 
journal,  had  it  brought  into  the  Council, 
and  there,  in  the  presence  of  his  lords 
and  great  officers  of  state,  tore  out  the 
offensive  resolution  with  his  own  royal 
hand.  He  then  dissolved  Parliament, 
and  sent  its  most  refractory  members  to 
the  Tower.  I  have  no  fear,  certainly, 
Sir,  that  this  English  example  will  be 
followed,  on  this  occasion,  to  its  full  ex 
tent;  nor  would  I  insinuate  that  any 
thing  outrageous  has  been  thought  of,  or 
intended,  except  outrageous  pretensions ; 
but  such  pretensions  I  must  impute  to 
the  author  of  this  Protest,  whoever  that 
author  may  be. 

When  this  and  the  other  house  shall 
lose  the  freedom  of  speech  and  debate ; 
when  they  shall  surrender  the  rights  of 
publicly  and  freely  canvassing  all  im 
portant  measures  of  the  executive ;  when 
they  shall  not  be  allowed  to  maintain 


their  own  authority  and  their  own  privi 
leges  by  vote,  declaration,  or  resolution, 
—  they  will  then  be  no  longer  free  repre 
sentatives  of  a  free  people,  but  slaves 
themselves,  and  fit  instruments  to  make 
slaves  of  others. 

The  Protest,  Mr.  President,  concedes 
what  it  doubtless  regards  as  a  liberal 
right  of  discussion  to  the  people  them 
selves.  But  its  language,  even  in  ac 
knowledging  this  right  of  the  people  to 
discuss  the  conduct  of  their  servants,  is 
qualified  and  peculiar.  The  free  people 
of  the  United  States,  it  declares,  have 
an  undoubted  right  to  discuss  the  offi 
cial  conduct  of  the  President  in  such 
language  and  form  as  they  may  think 
proper,  "subject  only  to  the  restraints 
of  truth  and  justice."  But,  then,  who 
is  to  be  judge  of  this  truth  and  justice? 
Are  the  people  to  judge  for  themselves, 
or  are  others  to  judge  for  them?  The 
Protest  is  here  speaking  of  political  rights, 
and  not  moral  rights ;  and  if  restraints 
are  imposed  on  political  rights,  it  must 
follow,  of  course,  that  others  are  to  de 
cide  whenever  the  case  arises  whether 
these  restraints  have  been  violated.  It 
is  strange  that  the  writer  of  the  Protest 
did  not  perceive  that,  by  using  this  lan 
guage,  he  was  pushing  the  President 
into  a  direct  avowal  of  the  doctrines  of 
1798.  The  text  of  the  Protest  and  the 
text  of  the  obnoxious  act 1  of  that  year 
are  nearly  identical. 

But,  Sir,  if  the  people  have  a  right  to 
discuss  the  official  conduct  of  the  execu 
tive,  so  have  their  representatives.  We 
have  been  taught  to  regard  a  representa  • 
tive  of  the  people  as  a  sentinel  on  the 
watch-tower  of  liberty.  Is  he  to  be 
blind,  though  visible  danger  approaches? 
Is  he  to  be  deaf,  though  sounds  of  peril 
fill  the  air?  Is  he  to  be  dumb,  while  a 
thousand  duties  impel  him  to  raise  the 
cry  of  alarm?  Is  he  not,  rather,  to 
catch  the  lowest  whisper  which  breathes 
intention  or  purpose  of  encroachmeDt 
on  the  public  liberties,  and  to  give  his 
voice  breath  and  utterance  at  the  first 
appearance  of  danger?  Is  not  his  eye 
to  travel  se  the  whole  horizon  with  the 

1  Commonly  called  the  Sedition  Act,  ap 
proved  14th  July,  1798. 


378 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


keen  and  eager  vision  of  an  unhooded 
hawk,  detecting,  through  all  disguises, 
every  enemy  advancing,  in  any  form, 
towards  the  citadel  which  he  guards? 
Sir,  this  watchfulness  for  public  liberty ; 
this  duty  of  foreseeing  danger  and  pro 
claiming  it;  this  promptitude  and  bold 
ness  in  resisting  attacks  on  the  Consti 
tution  from  any  quarter;  this  defence  of 
established  landmarks;  this  fearless  re 
sistance  of  whatever  would  transcend  or 
remove  them,  —  all  belong  to  the  repre 
sentative  character,  are  interwoven  with 
its  very  nature.  If  deprived  of  them, 
an  active,  intelligent,  faithful  agent  of 
the  people  will  be  converted  into  an 
unresisting  and  passive  instrument  of 
power.  A  representative  body,  which 
gives  up  these  rights  and  duties,  gives 
itself  up.  It  is  a  representative  body 
no  longer.  It  has  broken  the  tie  be 
tween  itself  and  its  constituents,  and 
henceforth  is  fit  only  to  be  regarded  as 
an  inert,  self-sacrificed  mass,  from  which 
all  appropriate  principle  of  vitality  has 
departed  for  ever. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  vindicate 
the  right  of  the  Senate  to  pass  the  reso 
lution  of  the  28th  of  March,  notwith 
standing  the  denial  of  that  right  in  the 
Protest. 

But  there  are  other  sentiments  and 
opinions  expressed  in  the  Protest,  of  the 
very  highest  importance,  and  which  de 
mand  nothing  less  than  our  utmost  at 
tention. 

The  first  object  of  a  free  people  is  the 
preservation  of  their  liberty;  and  liberty 
is  only  to  be  preserved  by  maintaining 
constitutional  restraints  and  just  di 
visions  of  political  power.  Nothing  is 
more  deceptive  or  more  dangerous  than 
the  pretence  of  a  desire  to  simplify  gov 
ernment.  The  simplest  governments  are 
despotisms;  the  next  simplest,  limited 
monarchies;  but  all  republics,  all  gov 
ernments  of  law,  must  impose  numerous 
limitations  and  qualifications  of  author 
ity,  and  give  many  positive  and  many 
qualified  rights.  In  other  words,  they 
must  be  subject  to  rule  and  regulation. 
This  is  the  very  essence  of  free  political 
institutions.  The  spirit  of  liberty  is, 
indeed,  a  bold  and  fearless  spirit;  but 


it  is  also  a  sharp-sighted  spirit;  it  is  a 
cautious,  sagacious,  discriminating,  far- 
seeing  yitelligence ;  it  is  jealous  of  en 
croachment,  jealous  of  power,  jealous  of 
man.  It  demands  checks;  it  seeks  for 
guards;  it  insists  on  securities;  it  in 
trenches  itself  behind  strong  defences, 
and  fortifies  itself  with  all  possible  care 
against  the  assaults  of  ambition  and 
passion.  It  does  not  trust  the  amiable 
weaknesses'of  human  nature,  and  there 
fore  it  will  not  permit  power  to  overstep 
its  prescribed  limits,  though  benevo 
lence,  good  intent,  and  patriotic  pur 
pose  come  along  with  it.  Neither  does 
it  satisfy  itself  with  flashy  and  tempo 
rary  resistance  to  illegal  authority.  Far 
otherwise.  It  seeks  for  duration  and 
permanence.  It  looks  before  and  after; 
and,  building  on  the  experience  of  ages 
which  are  past,  it  labors  diligently  for 
the  benefit  of  ages  to  come.  This  is  the 
nature  of  constitutional  liberty;  and  this 
is  our  liberty,  if  we  will  rightly  under 
stand  and  preserve  it.  Every  free  gov 
ernment  is  necessarily  complicated,  be 
cause  all  such  governments  establish 
restraints,  as  well  on  the  power  of  gov 
ernment  itself  as  on  that  of  individuals. 
If  we  will  abolish  the  distinction  of 
branches,  and  have  but  one  branch;  if 
we  will  abolish  jury  trials,  and  leave  all 
to  the  judge;  if  we  will  then  ordain 
that  the  legislator  shall  himself  be  that 
judge ;  and  if  we  will  place  the  execu 
tive  power  in  the  same  hands,  we  may 
readily  simplify  government.  We  may 
easily  bring  it  to  the  simplest  of  all 
possible  forms,  a  pure  despotism.  But 
a  separation  of  departments,  so  far  as 
practicable,  and  the  preservation  of 
clear  lines  of  division  between  them,  is 
the  fundamental  idea  in  the  creation  of 
all  our  constitutions;  and,  doubtless,  the 
continuance  of  regulated  liberty  depends 
on  maintaining  these  boundaries. 

In  the  progress,  Sir,  of  the  govern 
ments  of  the  United  States,  we  seem 
exposed  to  two  classes  of  dangers  or 
disturbances;  one  external,  the  other 
internal.  It  may  happen  that  collisions 
arise  between  this  government  and  the 
governments  of  the  States.  That  case 
belongs  to  the  first  class.  A  memorable 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


379 


instance  of  this  kind  occurred  last  year. 
It  was  niy  conscientious  opinion,  on  that 
occasion,  that  the  authority  claimed  by 
an  individual  State  l  was  subversive  of 
the  just  powers  of  this  government,  and, 
indeed,  incompatible  with  its  existence., 
I  gave  a  hearty  co-operation,  therefore, 
to  measures  which  the  crisis  seemed  to 
require.  We  have  now  before  us  what 
appears,  to  my  judgment,  to  be  an  in 
stance  of  the  latter  kind.  A  contest 
has  arisen  between  different  branches 
of  the  same  government,  interrupting 
their  harmony,  and  threatening  to  dis 
turb  their  balance.  It  is  of  the  highest 
importance,  therefore,  to  examine  the 
question  carefully,  and  to  decide  it 
justly. 

The  separation  of  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment  into  three  departments,  though 
all  our  constitutions  profess  to  be  founded 
on  it,  has,  nevertheless,  never  been  per 
fectly  established  in  any  government  of 
the  world,  and  perhaps  never  can  be. 
The  general  principle  is  of  inestimable 
value,  and  the  leading  lines  of  distinc 
tion  sufficiently  plain;  yet  there  are 
powers  of  so  undecided  a  character,  that 
they  do  not  seem  necessarily  to  range 
themselves  under  either  head.  And 
most  of  our  constitutions,  too,  having 
laid  down  the  general  principle,  imme 
diately  create  exceptions.  There  do  not 
exist,  in  the  general  science  of  govern 
ment,  or  the  received  maxims  of  po 
litical  law,  such  precise  definitions  as 
enable  us  always  to  say  of  a  given  power 
whether  it  be  legislative,  executive,  or 
judicial.  And  this  is  one  reason, 
doubtless,  why  the  Constitution,  in  con 
ferring  power  on  all  the  departments, 
proceeds  not  by  general  definition,  but 
by  specific  enumeration.  And,  again, 
it  grants  a  power  in  general  terms,  but 
yet,  in  the  same  or  some  other  article  or 
section,  imposes  a  limitation  or  qualifi 
cation  on  the  grant;  and  the  grant  and 
the  limitation  must,  of  course,  be  con 
strued  together.  Thus  the  Constitution 
says  that  all  legislative  power,  therein 
granted,  shall  be  vested  in  Congress, 
which  Congress  shall  consist  of  a  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives;  and  yet, 
1  South  Carolina. 


in  another  article,  it  gives  to  the  Presi 
dent  a  qualified  negative  over  all  acts  of 
Congress.  So  the  Constitution  declares 
that  the  judicial  power  shall  be  vested 
in  one  Supreme  Court,  and  such  inferior 
courts  as  Congress  may  establish.  It 
gives,  nevertheless,  in  another  provision, 
judicial  power  to  the  Senate;  and,  in 
like  manner,  though  it  declares  that  the 
executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  the 
President,  using,  in  the  immediate  con 
text,  no  words  of  limitation,  yet  it  else 
where  subjects  the  treaty-making  powrer, 
and  the  appointing  power,  to  the  con 
currence  of  the  Senate.  The  irresistible 
inference  from  these  considerations  is, 
that  the  mere  nomination  of  a  depart 
ment,  as  one  of  the  three  great  and 
commonly  acknowledged  departments  of 
government,  does  not  confer  on  that  de 
partment  any  power  at  all.  Notwith 
standing  the  departments  are  called  the 
legislative,  the  executive,  and  the  judi 
cial,  we  must  yet  look  into  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  in  order  to 
learn,  first,  what  powers  the  Constitu 
tion  regards  as  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial;  and,  in  the  next  place, 
what  portions  or  quantities  of  these 
powers  are  conferred  on  the  respective 
departments;  because  no  one  will  con 
tend  that  all  legislative  power  belongs 
to  Congress,  all  executive  power  to  the 
President,  or  all  judicial  pow7er  to  the 
courts  of  the  United  States. 

The  first  three  articles  of  the  Consti 
tution,  as  all  know,  are  taken  up  in 
prescribing  the  organization,  and  enu 
merating  the  powers,  of  the  three  de 
partments.  The  first  article  treats  of 
the  legislature,  and  its  first  section  is, 
"  All  legislative  power,  herein  granted, 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives." 
The  second  article  treats  of  the  execu 
tive  power,  and  its  first  section  declares 
that  "  the  executive  power  shall  be 
vested  in  a  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America."  The  third  article 
treats  of  the  judicial  power,  and  its 
first  section  declares  that  "  the  judicial 
power  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
vested  in  one  Supreme  Court,  and  in 


380 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


such  inferior  courts  as  the  Congress 
may,  from  time  to  time,  ordain  and 
establish." 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  doubted,  I  think, 
Sir,  that  these  descriptions  of  the  per 
sons  or  officers  in  whom  the  executive 
and  the  judicial  powers  are  to  be  vested 
no  more  define  the  extent  of  the  grant 
of  those  powers,  than  the  words  quoted 
from  the  first  article  describe  the  extent 
of  the  legislative  grant  to  Congress.  All 
these  several  titles,  heads  of  articles,  or 
introductory  clauses,  with  the  general 
declarations  which  they  contain,  serve 
to  designate  the  departments,  and  to 
mark  the  general  distribution  of  powers; 
but  in  all  the  departments,  in  the  execu 
tive  and  judicial  as  well  as  in  the  legis 
lative,  it  would  be  unsafe  to  contend  for 
any  specific  power  under  such  clauses. 

If  we  look  into  the  State  constitu 
tions,  we  shall  find  the  line  of  distinc 
tion  between  the  departments  still  less 
perfectly  drawn,  although  the  general 
principle  of  the  distinction  is  laid  down 
in  most  of  them,  and  in  some  of  them  in 
very  positive  and  emphatic  terms.  In 
some  of  these  States,  notwithstanding 
the  principle  of  distribution  is  adopted 
and  sanctioned,  the  legislature  appoints 
the  judges;  and  in  others  it  appoints 
both  the  governor  and  the  judges;  and 
in  others,  again,  it  appoints  not  only  the 
judges,  but  all  other  officers. 

The  inferences  which,  I  think,  follow 
from  these  views  of  the  subject,  are  two: 
first,  that  the  denomination  of  a  depart 
ment  does  riot  fix  the  limits  of  the  pow 
ers  conferred  on  it,  nor  even  their  exact 
nature;  and,  second  (which,  indeed,  fol 
lows  from  the  first) ,  that  in  our  Amer 
ican  governments,  the  chief  executive 
magistrate  does  not  necessarily,  and  by 
force  of  his  general  character  of  supreme 
executive,  possess  the  appointing  power. 
He  may  have  it,  or  he  may  not,  accord 
ing  to  the  particular  provisions  applica 
ble  to  each  case  in  the  respective  consti 
tutions. 

The  President  appears  to  have  taken 
a  different  view  of  this  subject.  He 
seems  to  regard  the  appointing  power  as 
originally  and  inherently  in  the  execu 
tive,  and  as  remaining  absolute  in  his 


hands,  except  so  far  as  the  Constitution 
restrains  it.  This  I  do  not  agree  to,  and 
I  shall  h^ve  occasion  hereafter  to  exam 
ine  the  question  further.  I  have  in 
tended  thus  far  only  to  insist  on  the  high 
and  indispensable  duty  of  maintaining 
the  division  of  power  as  the  Constitution 
has  marked  out  that  division,  arid  to  op 
pose  claims  of  authority  not  founded  on 
express  grants  or  necessary  implication, 
but  sustained  merely  by  argument  or  in 
ference  from  names  or  denominations 
given  to  departments. 

Mr.  President,  the  resolutions  now  be 
fore  us  declare,  that  the  Protest  asserts 
powers  as  belonging  to  the  President  in 
consistent  with  the  authority  of  the  two 
houses  of  Congress,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution;  and  that  the 
Protest  itself  is  a  breach  of  privilege. 
I  believe  all  this  to  be  true. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Protest  are  in 
consistent  with  the  authority  of  the  two 
houses,  because,  in  my  judgment,  they 
deny  the  just  extent  of  the  law-making 
power.  I  take  the  Protest  as  it  was  sent 
to  us,  without  inquiring  how  far  the 
subsequent  message  has  modified  or  ex 
plained  it.  It  is  singular,  indeed,  that 
a  paper,  so  long  in  preparation,  so  elab 
orate  in  composition,  and  which  is  put 
forth  for  s6  high  a  purpose  as  the  Pro 
test  avows,  should  not  be  able  to  stand 
an  hour's  discussion  before  it  became 
evident  that  it  was  indispensably  neces 
sary  to  alter  or  explain  its  contents. 
Explained  or  unexplained,  however,  the 
paper  contains  sentiments  which  justify 
us,  as  I  think,  in  adopting  these  resolu 
tions. 

In  the  first  place,  I  think  the  Protest 
a  clear  breach  of  privilege.  It  is  a  re 
proof  or  rebuke  of  the  Senate,  in  lan 
guage  hardly  respectful,  for  the  exercise 
of  a  power  clearly  belonging  to  it  as  a 
legislative  body.  It  entirely  misrepre 
sents  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate.  I 
find  this  paragraph  in  it,  among  others 
of  a  similar  tone  and  character:  "A 
majority  of  the  Senate,  wrhose  interfer 
ence  with  the  preliminary  question  has, 
for  the  best  of  all  reasons,  been  studi 
ously  excluded,  anticipate  the  action  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  assume 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


381 


not  only  the  function  which  belongs  ex 
clusively  to  that  body,  but  convert  them 
selves  into  accusers,  witnesses,  coun 
sel,  and  judges,  and  prejudge  the  whole 
case;  thus  presenting  the  appalling  spec 
tacle,  in  a  free  state,  of  judges  going 
through  a  labored  preparation  for  an  im 
partial  hearing  and  decision,  by  a  previ 
ous  ex  parte  investigation  and  sentence 
against  the  supposed  offender." 

Now,  Sir,  this  paragraph,  I  am  bound 
to  say,  is  a  total  misrepresentation  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Senate.  A  ma 
jority  of  the  Senate  have  not  anticipated 
the  House  of  Representatives ;  they  have 
not  assumed  the  functions  of  that  body ; 
they  have  not  converted  themselves  into 
accusers,  witnesses,  counsel,  or  judges; 
they  have  made  no  ex  parte  investiga 
tion  ;  they  have  given  no  sentence.  This 
paragraph  is  an  elaborate  perversion  of 
the  whole  design  and  the  whole  proceed 
ings  of  the  Senate.  A  Protest,  sent  to 
us  by  the  President,  against  votes  which 
the  Senate  has  an  unquestionable  right 
to  pass,  and  containing,  too,  such  a  mis 
representation  of  these  votes  as  this  par 
agraph  manifests,  is  a  breach  of  privilege. 

But  there  is  another  breach  of  priv 
ilege.  The  President  interferes  between 
the  members  of  the  Senate  and  their 
constituents,  and  charges  them  with  act 
ing  contrary  to  the  will  of  those  constit 
uents.  He  says  it  is  .his  right  and  duty 
to  look  to  the  journals  of  the  Senate  to 
ascertain  who  voted  for  the  resolution  of 
the  28th  of  March,  and  then  to  show 
that  individual  Senators  have,  by  their 
votes  on  that  resolution,  disobeyed  the 
instructions  or  violated  the  known  will 
of  the  legislatures  who  appointed  them. 
All  this  he  claims  as  his  right  and  his 
duty.  And  where  does  he  find  any  such 
right  or  any  such  duty?  What  right 
has  he  to  send  a  message  to  either  house 
of  Congress  telling  its  members  that 
they  disobey  the  will  of  their  constit 
uents  ?  Has  any  English  sovereign  since 
Cromwell's  time  dared  to  send  such  a 
message  to  Parliament  ?  Sir,  if  he  can 
tell  us  that  some  of  us  disobey  our  con 
stituents,  he  can  tell  us  that  all  do  so; 
and  if  we  consent  to  receive  this  lan 
guage  from  him,  there  is  but  one  re 


maining  step,  and  that  is,  that  since  we 
thus  disobey  the  will  of  our  constituents, 
he  should  disperse  us  and  send  us  home. 
In  my  opinion,  the  first  step  in  this 
process  is  as  distinct  a  breach  of  privi 
lege  as  the  last.  If  Cromwell's  example 
shall  be  followed  out,  it  will  not  be  more 
clear  then  than  it  is  now  that  the  privi 
leges  of  the  Senate  have  been  violated. 
There  is  yet  something,  Sir,  which  sur 
passes  all  this;  and  that  is,  that,  after 
this  direct  interference,  after  pointing 
out  those  Senators  whom  he  would  rep 
resent  as  having  disobeyed  the  known 
will  of  their  constituents,  he  disclaims  all 
design  of  interfering  at  all!  Sir,  who 
could  be  the  writer  of  a  message,  which, 
in  the  first  place,  makes  the  President 
assert  such  monstrous  pretensions,  and, 
in  the  next  line,  affront  the  understand 
ing  of  the  Senate  by  disavowing  all 
right  to  do  that  very  thing  which  he  is 
doing  ?  If  there  be  any  thing,  Sir,  in 
this  message,  more  likely  than  the  rest 
of  it  to  move  one  from  his  equanimity, 
it  is  this  disclaimer  of  all  design  to  in 
terfere  with  the  responsibility  of  mem 
bers  of  the  Senate  to  their  constituents, 
after  such  interference  had  already  been 
made,  in  the  same  paper,  in  the  most 
objectionable  and  offensive  form.  If  it 
were  not  for  the  purpose  of  telling  these 
Senators  that  they  disobeyed  the  will  of 
the  legislatures  of  the  States  they  repre 
sent,  for  what  purpose  was  it  that  the 
Protest  has  pointed  out  the  four  Sen 
ators,  and  paraded  against  them  the  sen 
timents  of  their  legislatures  ?  There  can 
be  no  other  purpose.  The  Protest  says, 
indeed,  that  "these  facts  belong  to  the 
history  of  these  proceedings  "!  To  the 
history  of  what  proceedings?  To  any 
proceeding  to  which  the  President  was 
party?  To  any  proceeding  to  which  the 
Senate  was  party?  Have  they  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  resolution  of  the  28th  of 
March?  But  it  adds,  that  these  facts 
are  important  to  the  fust  development  of  (he 
principles  and  interests  invoiced  in  the  pro 
ceedings.  All  this  might  be  said  of  any 
other  facts.  It  is  mere  words.  To  what 
principles,  to  what  interests,  are  these 
facts  important?  They  can  be  impor 
tant  but  in  one  point  of  view ;  and  that 


382 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


is  as  proof,  or  evidence,  that  the  Sen 
ators  have  disobeyed  instructions,  or 
acted  against  the  known  will  of  their 
constituents  in  disapproving  the  Presi 
dent's  conduct.  They  have  not  the 
slightest  bearing  in  any  other  way. 
They  do  not  make  the  resolution  of  the 
Senate  more  or  less  true,  nor  its  right  to 
pass  it  more  or  less  clear.  Sir,  these 
proceedings  of  the  legislatures  were  in 
troduced  into  this  Protest  for  the  very 
purpose,  and  no  other,  of  showing  that 
members  of  the  Senate  have  acted  con 
trary  to  the  will  of  their  constituents. 
Every  man  sees  and  knows  this  to  have 
been  the  sole  design ;  and  any  other  pre 
tence  is  a  mockery  to  our  understandings. 
And  this  purpose  is,  in  my  opinion,  an 
unlawful  purpose ;  it  is  an  unjustifiable 
intervention  between  us  and  our  constit 
uents;  and  is,  therefore,  a  manifest  and 
flagrant  breach  of  privilege. 

In  the  next  place,  the  assertions  of  the 
Protest  are  inconsistent  with  the  just 
authority  of  Congress,  because  they  claim 
for  the  President  a  power,  independent 
of  Congress,  to  possess  the  custody  and 
control  of  the  public  treasures.  Let  this 
point  be  accurately  examined;  and,  in 
order  to  avoid  mistake,  I  will  read  the 
precise  words  of  the  Protest. 

"  The  custody  of  the  public  property,  un 
der  such  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  legislative  authority,  has  always  been 
considered  an  appropriate  function  of  the 
executive  department  in  this  and  all  other 
governments.  In  accordance  with  this  prin 
ciple,  every  species  of  property  belonging  to 
the  United  States,  (excepting  that  which  is 
in  the  use  of  the  several  co-ordinate  depart 
ments  of  the  government,  as  means  to  aid 
them  in  performing  their  appropriate  func 
tions,)  is  in  charge  of  officers  appointed 
by  the  President,  whether  it  be  lands,  or 
buildings,  or  merchandise,  or  provisions,  or 
clothing,  or  arms  and  munitions  of  war. 
The  superintendents  and  keepers  of  the 
whole  arc  appointed  by  the  President,  and 
removable  at  his  will. 

"  Public  money  is  but  a  species  of  public 
property.  It  cannot  be  raised  by  taxation 
or  customs,  nor  brought  into  the  treasury 
in  any  other  way  except  by  law  ;  but  when 
ever  or  howsoever  obtained,  its  custody  al 
ways  has  been,  and  always  must  be,  unless 


the  Constitution  be  changed,  intrusted  to 
the  executive  department.  No  officer  can 
be  created  by  Congress,  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  cflarge  of  it,  whose  appointment 
would  not,  by  the  Constitution,  at  once  de 
volve  on  the  President,  and  who  would  not 
be  responsible  to  him  for  the  faithful  per 
formance  of  his  duties." 

And,  in  another  place,  it  declares  that 
"  Congress  cannot,  therefore,  take  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  executive  department 
the  custody  of  the  public  property  or 
money,  without  an  assumption  of  execu 
tive  power,  and  a  subversion  of  the  first 
principles  of  the  Constitution."  These, 
Sir,  are  propositions  which  cannot  re 
ceive  too  much  attention.  They  affirm, 
that  the  custody  of  the  public  money 
constitutionally  and  necessarily  belongs 
to  the  executive;  and  that,  until  the 
Constitution  is  changed,  Congress  can 
not  take  it  out  of  his  hands,  nor  make 
any  provision  for  its  custody,  except  by 
such  superintendents  and  keepers  as  are 
appointed  by  the  President  and  remova 
ble  at  his  will.  If  these  assertions  be 
correct,  we  have,  indeed,  a  singular 
constitution  for  a  republican  govern 
ment;  for  we  give  the  executive  the 
control,  the  custody,  and  the  posses 
sion  of  the  public  treasury,  by  origi 
nal  constitutional  provision  ;  and  when 
Congress  •  appropriates,  it  appropriates 
only  what  is  already  in  the  President's 
hands. 

Sir,  I  hold  these  propositions  to  be 
sound  in  neither  branch.  -I  maintain 
that  the  custody  of  the  public  money 
does  not  necessarily  belong  to  the  ex 
ecutive,  under  this  government;  and  I 
hold  that  Congress  may  so  dispose  of  it, 
that  it  shall  be  under  the  superintend 
ence  of  keepers  not  appointed  by  the 
President,  nor  removable  at  his  will.  I 
think  it  competent  for  Congress  to  de 
clare,  as  Congress  did  declare  in  the 
bank  charter,  that  the  public  deposits 
should  be  made  in  the  bank.  When  in 
the  bank,  they  were  not  kept  by  persons 
appointed  by  the  President,  or  remova 
ble  at  his  will.  He  could  not  change 
that  custody;  nor  could  it  be  changed 
at  all,  but  according  to  provisions  made 
in  the  law  itself.  There  was,  indeed,  a 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


383 


provision  in  the  law  authorizing  the  Sec 
retary  to  change  the  custody.  But  sup 
pose  there  had  been  no  such  provision ; 
suppose  the  contingent  power  had  not 
been  given  to  the  Secretary;  would  it 
not  have  been  a  lawful  enactment? 
Might  not  the  law  have  provided  that 
the  public  moneys  should  remain  in  the 
bank,  until  Congress  itself  should  other 
wise  order,  leaving  no  power  of  removal 
anywhere  else?  And  if  such  provision 
had  been  made,  what  power,  or  custody, 
or  control,  would  the  President  have 
possessed  over  them?  Clearly,  none  at 
all.  The  act  of  May,  1800,  directed 
custom-house  bonds,  in  places  where  the 
bank  which  was  then  in  existence  was 
situated,  or  in  which  it  had  branches,  to 
be  deposited  in  the  bank  or  its  branches 
for  collection,  without  the  reservation 
to  the  Secretary,  or  anybody  else,  of 
any  power  of  removal.  Now,  Sir,  this 
was  an  unconstitutional  law,  if  the  Pro 
test,  in  the  part  now  under  consideration, 
be  correct ;  because  it  placed  the  public 
money  in  a  custody  beyond  the  control 
of  the  President,  and  in  the  hands  of 
keepers  not  appointed  by  him,  nor  re 
movable  at  his  pleasure.  One  may 
readily  discern,  Sir,  the  process  of  rea 
soning  by  which  the  author  of  the  Pro 
test  brought  himself  to  the  conclusion 
that  Congress  could  not  place  the  public 
moneys  beyond  the  President's  control. 
It  is  all  founded  on  the  power  of  ap 
pointment  and  the  power  of  removal. 
These  powers,  it  is  supposed,  must  give 
the  President  complete  control  and  au 
thority  over  those  who  actually  hold  the 
money,  and  therefore  must  necessarily 
subject  its  custody,  at  all  times,  to  his 
own  individual  will.  This  is  the  argu 
ment. 

It  is  true,  that  the  appointment  of  all 
public  officers,  with  some  exceptions,  is, 
by  the  Constitution,  given  to  the  Presi 
dent,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate; 
and  as,  in  most  cases,  public  property 
must  be  held  by  some  officer,  its  keepers 
will  generally  be  persons  so  appointed. 
But  this  is  only  the  common,  not  a  neces 
sary  consequence,  of  giving  the  appoint 
ing  power  to  the  President  and  Senate. 
Congress  may  still,  if  it  shall  so  see  fit, 


place  the  public  treasure  in  the  hand  of 
no  officer  appointed  by  the  President,  or 
removable  by  him,  but  in  hands  quite 
beyond  his  control.  Subject  to  one 
contingency  only,  it  did  this  very  thing 
by  the  charter  of  the  present  bank; 
and  it  did  the  same  thing  absolutely, 
and  subject  to  no  contingency,  by  the 
law  of  1800.  The  Protest,  in  the  first 
place,  seizes  on  the  fact  that  all  officers 
must  be  appointed  by  the  President,  or 
on  his  nomination;  it  then  assumes  the 
next  step,  that  all  officers  are,  and  must 
be,  removable  at  his  pleasure;  and  then, 
insisting  that  public  money,  like  other 
public  property,  must  be  kept  by  some 
public  officer,  it  thus  arrives  at  the  con 
clusion  that  it  must  always  be  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  are  appointed  by  the 
President,  and  who  are  removable  at  his 
pleasure.  And  it  is  very  clear  that  the 
Protest  means  to  maintain  that  the  tenure 
of  office  cannot  be  so  regulated  by  laiv,  as 
that  public  officers  shall  not  be  removable  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  President. 

The  President  considers  the  right  of 
removal  as  a  fixed,  vested,  constitutional 
right,  which  Congress  cannot  limit,  con 
trol,  or  qualify,  until  the  Constitution 
shall  be  altered.  This,  Sir,  is  doctrine 
which  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit.  I 
shall  not  now  discuss  the  question, 
whether  the  law  may  not  place  the 
tenure  of  office  beyond  the  reach  of  ex 
ecutive  pleasure;  but  I  wish  merely  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the 
fact,  that  any  such  power  in  Congress 
is  denied  by  the  principles  and  by  ths 
words  of  the  Protest.  According  to  that 
paper,  we  live  under  a  constitution  by 
the  provisions  of  which  the  public  treas 
ures  are,  necessarily  and  unavoidably, 
always  under  executive  control ;  and  as 
the  executive  may  remove  all  officers, 
and  appoint  others,  at  least  temporarily, 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate, 
he  may  hold  those  treasures,  in  the 
hands  of  persons  appointed  by  himself 
alone,  in  defiance  of  any  law  which 
Congress  has  passed  or  can  pass.  It  is 
to  be  seen,  Sir,  how  far  such  claims  of 
power  will  receive  the  approbation  of  the 
country.  It  is  to  be  seen  whether  a  con 
struction  will  be  readily  adopted  which 


384 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


thus  places  the  public  purse  out  of  the 
guardianship  of  the  immediate  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people. 

But,  Sir,  there  is,  in  this  paper,  some 
thing  even  yet  more  strange  than  these 
extraordinary  claims  of  power.  There 
is  a  strong  disposition,  running  through 
the  whole  Protest,  to  represent  the  execu 
tive  department  of  this  government  as 
the  peculiar  protector  of  the  public  lib 
erty,  the  chief  security  on  which  the 
people  are  to  rely  against  the  encroach 
ment  of  other  branches  of  the  govern 
ment.  Nothing  can  be  more  manifest 
than  this  purpose.  To  this  end,  the 
Protest  spreads  out  the  President's  offi 
cial  oath,  reciting  all  its  words  in  a 
formal  quotation ;  and  yet  the  oath  of 
members  of  Congress  is  exactly  equiva 
lent.  The  President  is  to  swear  that  he 
will  "preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution";  and  members  of  Con 
gress  are  to  swear  that  they  will  "  sup 
port  the  Constitution."  There  are  more 
words  in  one  oath  than  the  other,  but 
the  sense  is  precisely  the  same.  Why, 
then,  this  reference  to  his  official  oath, 
and  this  ostentatious  quotation  of  it? 
Would  the  writer  of  the  Protest  argue 
that  the  oath  itself  is  any  grant  of 
power;  or  that,  because  the  President  is 
to  "preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution,"  he  is  therefore  to  use 
what  means  he  pleases  for  such  preser 
vation,  protection,  and  defence,  or  any 
means  except  those  which  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws  have  specifically  given 
him?  Such  an  argument  would  be  ab 
surd;  but  if  the  oath  be  not  cited  for 
this  preposterous  purpose,  with  what  de 
sign  is  it  thus  displayed  on  the  face  of 
the  Protest,  unless  it  be  to  support  the 
general  idea  that  the  maintenance  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  preservation  of 
the  public  liberties  are  especially  con 
fided 'to  the  safe  discretion,  the  sure 
moderation,  the  paternal  guardianship, 
of  executive  power?  The  oath  of  the 
President  contains  three  words,  all  of 
equal  import;  that  is,  that  he  will  pre 
serve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitu 
tion.  The  oath  of  members  of  Con 
gress  is  expressed  in  shorter  phrase;  it 
is,  that  they  will  support  the  Constitu 


tion.  If  there  be  any  difference  in  the 
meaning  of  the  two  oaths,  I  cannot  dis 
cern  it:  and  yet  the  Protest  solemnly 
and  formally  argues  thus:  "  The  duty 
of  defending,  so  far  as  in  him  lies,  the 
integrity  of  the  Constitution,  would,  in 
deed,  have  resulted  from  the  very  nature 
of  his  office ;  but  by  thus  expressing  it 
in  the  official  oath  or  affirmation,  which, 
in  this  respect,  differs  from  that  of  every 
other  functionary,  the  founders  of  our 
republic  have  attested  their  sense  of  its 
importance,  and  have  given  to  it  a  pe 
culiar  solemnity  and  force." 

Sir,  I  deny  the  proposition,  and  I  dis 
pute  the  proof.  I  deny  that  the  duty  of 
defending  the  integrity  of  the  Constitu 
tion  is,  in  any  peculiar  sense,  confided 
to  the  President;  and  I  deny  that  the 
words  of  his  oath  furnish  any  argument 
to  make  good  that  proposition.  Be 
pleased,  Sir,  to  remember  against  whom 
it  is  that  the  President  holds  it  his  pe 
culiar  duty  to  defend  the  integrity  of  the 
Constitution.  It  is  not  against  external 
force;  it  is  not  against  a  foreign  foe;  no 
such  thing;  but  it  «s  against  the  represent 
atives  of  the  people  and  the  representatives 
of  the  States !  It  is  against  these  that  the 
founders  of  our  republic  have  imposed 
on  him  the  duty  of  defending  the  integ 
rity  of  the  Constitution ;  a  duty,  he  says, 
of  the  importance  of  which  they  have 
attested  their  sense,  and  to  which  they 
have  given  peculiar  solemnity  and  force, 
by  expressing  it  in  his  official  oath! 

Let  us  pause,  Sir,  and  consider  this 
most  strange  proposition.  The  Presi 
dent  is  the  chief  executive  magistrate. 
He  is  commander- in-chief  of  the  army 
and  navy;  nominates  all  persons  to 
office;  claims  a  right  to  remove  all  at 
will,  and  to  control  all,  while  yet  in 
office;  dispenses  all  favors;  and  wields 
the  whole  patronage  of  the  government. 
And  the  proposition  is,  that  the  duty  of 
defending  the  integrity  of  the  Consti 
tution  against  the  representatives  of  the 
States  and  against  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  results  to  him  from  the  very  na 
ture  of  his  office ;  and  that  the  founders 
of  our  republic  have  given  to  this  duty, 
thus  confided  to  him,  peculiar  solemnity 
and  force ! 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


385 


Mr.  President,  the  contest,  for  ages, 
has  been  to  rescue  Liberty  from  the 
grasp  of  executive  power.  Whoever 
has  engaged  in  her  sacred  cause,  from 
the  days  of  the  downfall  of  those  great 
aristocracies  which  had  stood  between 
the  king  and  the  people  to  the  time  of 
our  own  independence,  has  struggled 
for  the  accomplishment  of  that  single 
object.  On  the  long  list  .of  the  cham 
pions  of  human  freedom,  there  is  not 
one  name  dimmed  by  the  reproach  of 
advocating  the  extension  of  executive 
authority;  on  the  contrary,  the  uniform 
and  steady  purpose  of  all  such  cham 
pions  has  been  to  limit  and  restrain  it. 
To  this  end  the  spirit  of  liberty,  grow 
ing  more  and  more  enlightened  and 
more  and  more  vigorous  from  age  to 
age,  has  been  battering,  for  centuries, 
against  the  solid  butments  of  the  feudal 
system.  To  this  end,  all  that  could  be 
gained  from  the  imprudence,  snatched 
from  the  weakness,  or  wrung  from  the 
necessities  of  crowned  heads,  has  been 
carefully  gathered  up,  secured,  and 
hoarded,  as  the  rich  treasures,  the  very 
jewels  of  liberty.  To  this  end,  popular 
and  representative  right  has  kept  up  its 
warfare  against  prerogative,  with  va 
rious  success;  sometimes  writing  the 
history  of  a  whole  age  in  blood,  some 
times  witnessing  the  martyrdom  of  Sid 
neys  and  Russells,  often  baffled  and 
repulsed,  but  still  gaining,  on  the  whole, 
and  holding  what  it  gained  with  a  grasp 
which  nothing  but  the  complete  extinc 
tion  of  its  own  being  could  compel  it  to 
relinquish.  At  length,  the  great  con 
quest  over  executive  power,  in  the  lead 
ing  western  states  of  Europe,  has  been 
accomplished.  The  feudal  system,  like 
other  stupendous  fabrics  of  past  ages,  is 
known  only  by  the  rubbish  which  it  has 
left  behind  it.  Crowned  heads  have 
been  compelled  to  submit  to  the  re 
straints  of  law,  and  the  PEOPLE,  with 
that  intelligence  and  that  spirit  which 
make  their  voice  resistless,  have  been 
able  to  say  to  prerogative,  "  Thus  far 
shalt  thou  come,  and  no  farther."  I 
need  hardly  say,  Sir,  that  into  the  full 
enjoyment  of  all  which  Europe  has 
reached  only  through  such  slow  and 


painful  steps  we  sprang  at  once,  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  by 
the  establishment  of  free  representative 
governments ;  governments  borrowing 
more  or  less  from  the  models  of  other 
free  states,  but  strengthened,  secured, 
'improved  in  their  symmetry,  and  deep 
ened  in  their  fbundation,  by  those  great 
men  of  our  own  country  whose  names 
will  be  as  familiar  to  future  times  as 
if  they  were  written  on  the  arch  of  the 
sky. 

Through  all  this  history,  of  the  con 
test  for  liberty,  executive  power  has 
been  regarded  as  a  lion  which  must  be 
caged.  So  far  from  being  the  object  of 
enlightened  popular  trust,  so  far  from 
being  considered  the  natural  protector 
of  popular  right,  it  has  been  dreaded, 
uniformly,  always  dreaded,  as  the  great 
source  of  its  danger. 

And  now,  Sir,  who  is  he,  so  ignorant 
of  the  history  of  liberty,  at  home  and 
abroad;  who  is  he,  yet  dwelling  in  his 
contemplations  among  the  principles 
and  dogmas  of  the  Middle  Ages ;  who  is 
he,  from  whose  bosom  all  original  infu 
sion  of  American  spirit  has  become  so 
entirely  evaporated  and  exhaled,  that 
he  shall  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  the  doc 
trine  that  the  defence  of  liberty  natu 
rally  results  to  executive  power,  and  is 
its  peculiar  duty?  Who  is  he,  that, 
generous  and  confiding  towards  power 
where  it  is  most  dangerous,  and  jealous 
only  of  those  who  can  restrain  it,  —  who 
is  he,  that,  reversing  the  order  of  the 
state,  and  upheaving  the  base,  would 
poise  the  pyramid  of  the  political  sys 
tem  upon  its  apex?  Who  is  he,  that, 
overlooking  with  contempt  the  guar 
dianship  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  and  with  equal  contempt  the 
higher  guardianship  of  the  people  them 
selves,  —  who  is  he  that  declares  to  us, 
through  the  President's  lips,  that  the 
security  for  freedom  rests  in  executive 
authority?  Who  is  he  that  belies  the 
blood  and  libels  the  fame  of  his  own 
ancestors,  by  declaring  that  they,  with 
solemnity  of  form,  and  force  of  manner, 
have  invoked  the  executive  power  to 
come  to  the  protection  of  liberty?  Who 


386 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


is  he  that  thus  charges  them  with  the 
insanity,  or  the  recklessness,  of  putting 
the  lamb  beneath  the  lion's  paw?  No, 
Sir.  No,  Sir.  Our  security  is  in  our 
watchfulness  of  executive  power.  It 
was  the  constitution  of  this  department 
which  was  infinitely  the  most  difficult 
part  in  the  great  work  of  creating  our 
present  government.  To  give  to  the 
executive  department  such  power  as 
should  make  it  useful,  and  yet  not  such 
as  should  render  it  dangerous ;  to  make 
it  efficient,  independent,  and  strong, 
and  yet  to  prevent  it  from  sweeping 
away  every  thing  by  its  union  of  mili 
tary  and  civil  authority,  by  the  influ 
ence  of  patronage,  and  office,  and  favor, 
—  this,  indeed,  was  difficult.  They 
who  had  the  work  to  do  saw  the  diffi 
culty,  and  we  see  it;  and  if  we  would 
maintain  our  system,  we  shall  act 
wisely  to  that  end,  by  preserving  every 
restraint  and  every  guard  which  the 
Constitution  has  provided.  And  when 
we,  and  those  who  come  after  us,  have 
done  all  that  we  can  do,  and  all  that 
they  can  do,  it  will  be  well  for  us  and 
for  them,  if  some  popular  executive,  by 
the  power  of  patronage  and  party,  and 
the  power,  too,  of  that  very  popular 
ity,  shall  not  hereafter  prove  an  over 
match  for  all  other  branches  of  the  gov 
ernment. 

I  do  not  wish,  Sir,  to  impair  the 
power  of  the  President,  as  it  stands 
written  down  in  the  Constitution,  and 
as  great  and  good  men  have  hitherto 
exercised  it.  In  this,  as  in  other  re 
spects,  I  am  for  the  Constitution  as  it  is. 
But  I  will  not  acquiesce  in  the  reversal 
of  all  just  ideas  of  government;  I  will 
not  degrade  the  character  of  popular 
representation ;  I  will  not  blindly  con 
fide,  where  all  experience  admonishes 
me  to  be  jealous ;  I  will  not  trust  execu 
tive  power,  vested  in  the  hands  of  a 
single  magistrate,  to  be  the  guardian  of 
liberty. 

Having  claimed  for  the  executive  the 
especial  guardianship  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  Protest  proceeds  to  present  a 
summary  view  of  the  powers  which  are 
supposed  to  be  conferred  on  the  execu 
tive  by  that  instrument.  And  it  is  to 


this  part  of  the  message,  Sir,  that  I 
would,  more  than  to  all  others,  call  the 
particular,  attention  of  the  Senate.  I 
confess  that  it  was  only  upon  careful  re- 
perusal  of  the  paper  that  I  perceived  the 
extent  to  which  its  assertions  of  power 
reach.  I  do  not  speak  now  of  the  Pres 
ident's  claims  of  power  as  opposed  to 
legislative  authority,  but  of  his  opinions 
as  to  his  own  authority,  duty,  and  re 
sponsibility,  as  connected  with  all  other 
officers  under  the  government.  He  is 
of  opinion  that  the  whole  executive 
power  is  vested  in  him,  and  that  he  is 
responsible  for  its  entire  exercise;  that 
among  the  duties  imposed  on  him  is 
that  of  ''taking  care  that  the  laws  be 
faithfully  executed  " ;  and  that,  "  being 
thus  made  responsible  for  the  entire  ac 
tion  of  the  executive  department,  it  is 
but  reasonable  that  the  power  of  ap 
pointing,  overseeing,  and  controlling 
those  who  execute  the  laws,  a  power  in 
its  nature  executive,  should  remain  in 
his  hands.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only 
his  right,  but  the  Constitution  makes  it 
his  duty,  to  '  nominate,  and,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen 
ate,  appoint,'  all  'officers  of  the  United 
States  whose  appointments  are  not  in 
the  Constitution  otherwise  provided  for,' 
with  a  proviso  that  the  appointment  of 
inferior  officers  may  be  vested  in  the 
President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  justice, 
or  in  the  heads  of  departments." 

The  first  proposition,  then,  which  the 
Protest  asserts,  in  regard  to  the  Presi 
dent's  powers  as  executive  magistrate, 
is,  that,  the  general  duty  being  imposed 
on  him  by  the  Constitution  of  taking 
care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe 
cuted,  he  thereby  becomes  himself  respon 
sible  for  the  conduct  of  every  person  em 
ployed  in  the  government;  "  for  the  entire 
action,"  as  the  paper  expresses  it,  "of 
the  executive  department. "  This,  Sir, 
is  very  dangerous  logic.  I  reject  the  in 
ference  altogether.  No  such  responsibil 
ity,  nor  any  thing  like  it,  follows  from 
the  general  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
making  it  his  duty  to  see  the  laws  exe 
cuted.  If  it  did,  we  should  have,  in 
fact,  but  one  officer  in  the  whole  govern 
ment.  The  President  would  be  every- 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


387 


body.  And  the  Protest  assumes  to  the 
President  this  whole  responsibility  for 
every  other  officer,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  making  the  President  everybody,  of 
annihilating  every  thing  like  indepen 
dence,  responsibility,  or  character,  in 
all  other  public  agents.  The  whole  re 
sponsibility  is  assumed,  in  order  that  it 
rnay  be  more  plausibly  argued  that  all 
officers  of  government  are  not  agents  of 
the  law,  but  the  President's  agents,  and 
therefore  responsible  to  him  alone.  If 
he  be  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  all 
officers,  and  they  be  responsible  to  him 
only,  then  it  may  be  maintained  that 
such  officers  are  but  his  own  agents,  his 
substitutes,  his  deputies.  The  first 
thing  to  be  done,  therefore,  is  to  as 
sume  the  responsibility  for  all ;  and  this 
you  will  perceive,  Sir,  is  done,  in  the 
fullest  manner,  in  the  passages  which  I 
have  read.  Having  thus  assumed  for 
the  President  the  entire  responsibility 
of  the  whole  government,  the  Protest 
advances  boldly  to  its  conclusion,  and 
claims,  at  once,  absolute  power  over  all 
individuals  in  office,  as  being  merely 
the  President's  agents.  This  is  the 
language:  "  The  whole  executive  power 
being  vested  in  the  President,  who  is 
responsible  for  its  exercise,  it  is  a  neces 
sary  consequence  that  he  should  have 
a  right  to  employ  agents  of  his  own 
choice  to  aid  him  in  the  performance  of 
his  duties,  and  to  discharge  them  when 
he  is  no. longer  willing  to  be  responsible 
for  their  acts." 

This,  Sir,  completes  the  work.  This 
handsomely  rounds  off  the  whole  exec 
utive  system  of  executive  authority. 
First,  the  President  has  the  whole 
responsibility;  and  then,  being  thus 
responsible  for  all,  he  has,  and  ought 
to  have,  the  whole  power.  We  have 
heard  of  political  units,  and  our  Amer 
ican  executive,  as  here  represented,  is 
indeed  a  unit.  We  have  a  charmingly 
simple  government!  Instead  of  many 
officers,  in  different  departments,  each 
having  appropriate  duties,  and  each  re 
sponsible  for  his  own  duties,  we  are 
so  fortunate  as  to  have  to  deal  with  but 
one  officer.  The  President  carries  on 
the  government;  all  the  rest  are  but 


sub-contractors.  Sir,  whatever  name 
we  give  him,  we  have  but  ONE  EXECU 
TIVE  OFFICER.  A  Briareus  sits  in  the 
centre  of  our  system,  and  with  his  hun 
dred  hands  touches  every  thing,  moves 
•every  thing,  controls  every  thing.  I 
ask,  Sir,  Is  this  republicanism?  Is 
this  a  government  of  Jaws?  Is  this 
legal  responsibility? 

According  to  the  Protest,  the  very 
duties  which  every  officer  under  the 
government  performs  are  the  duties  of 
the  President  himself.  It  says  that  the 
President  has  a  right  to  employ  agents 
of  his  own  choice,  to  aid  HIM  in  the  per 
formance  of  HIS  duties. 

Mr.  President,  if  these  doctrines  be 
true,  it  is  idle  for  us  any  longer  to  talk 
about  any  such  thing  as  a  government 
of  laws.  We  have  no  government  of 
laws,  not  even  the  semblance  or  shadow 
of  it;  we  have  no  legal  responsibility. 
We  have  an  executive,  consisting  of  one 
person,  wielding  all  official  power,  and 
which  is,  to  every  effectual  purpose, 
completely  irresponsible.  The  President 
declares  that  he  is  "  responsible  for  the 
entire  action  of  the  executive  depart 
ment."  Responsible?  What  does  he, 
mean  by  being  "responsible"?  Does 
he  mean  legal  responsibility?  Certainly 
not.  No  such  thing.  Legal  responsi 
bility  signifies  liability  to  punishment 
for  misconduct  or  maladministration. 
But  the  Protest  does  not  mean  that  the 
President  is  liable  to  be  impeached  and 
punished  if  a  secretary  of  state  should 
commit  treason,  if  a  collector  of  the  cus 
toms  should  be  guilty  of  bribery,  or  if 
a  treasurer  should  embezzle  the  public 
money.  It  does  not  mean,  and  cannot 
mean,  that  he  should  be  answerable  for 
any  such  crime  or  such  delinquency. 
What  then,  is  its  notion  of  that  re 
sponsibility  which  it  says  the  President 
is  under  for  all  officers,  and  which  au 
thorizes  him  to  consider  all  officers  as 
his  own  personal  agents  ?  Sir,  it  is 
merely  responsibility  to  public  opin 
ion.  It  is  a  liability  to  be  blamed;  it 
is  the  chance  of  becoming  unpopu 
lar,  the  danger  of  losing  a  re-election. 
Nothing  else  is  meant  in  the  world. 
It  is  the  hazard  of  failing  in  any  at- 


388 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


tempt  or  enterprise  of  ambition.  This 
is  all  the  responsibility  to  which  the 
doctrines  of  the  Protest  hold  the  Presi 
dent  subject. 

It  is  precisely  the  responsibility  under 
which  Cromwell  acted  when  he  dis 
persed  Parliament,  telling  its  members, 
not  in  so  many  words,  indeed,  that  they 
disobeyed  the  will  of  their  constituents, 
but  telling  them  that  the  people  were 
sick  of  them,  and  that  he  drove  them 
out  "  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good 
of  the  nation."  It  is  precisely  the 
responsibility  upon  which  Bonaparte 
broke  up  the  popular  assembly  of 
France.  I  do  not  mean,  Sir,  certainly, 
by  these  illustrations,  to  insinuate  de 
signs  of  violent  usurpation  against  the 
President;  far  from  it;  but  I  do  mean 
to  maintain,  that  such  responsibility  as 
that  with  which  the  Protest  clothes  him 
is  no  legal  responsibility,  no  consti 
tutional  responsibility,  no  republican 
responsibility,  but  a  mere  liability  to 
loss  of  office,  loss  of  character,  and  loss 
of  fame,  if  he  shall  choose  to  violate 
the  laws  and  overturn  the  liberties  of 
the  country.  It  is  such  a  responsibility 
as  leaves  every  thing  in  his  discretion 
and  his  pleasure. 

Sir,  it  exceeds  human  belief  that  any 
man  should  put  sentiments  such  as  this 
paper  contains  into  a  public  communi 
cation  from  the  President  to  the  Senate. 
They  are  sentiments  which  give  us  all 
one  master.  The  Protest  asserts  an 
absolute  right  to  remove  all  persons 
from  office  at  pleasure;  and  for  what 
reason?  Because  they  are  incompetent? 
Because  they  are  incapable?  Because 
they  are  remiss,  negligent,  or  inatten 
tive?  No,  Sir;  these  are  not  the  rea 
sons.  But  he  may  discharge  them,  one 
and  all,  simply  because  "he  is  no 
longer  willing  to  be  responsible  for 
their  acts"!  It  insists  on  an  absolute 
right  in  the  President  to  direct  and  con 
trol  every  act  of  every  officer  of  the 
government,  except  the  judges.  It  as 
serts  this  right  of  direct  control  over 
and  over  again.  The  President  may  go 
into  the  treasury,  among  the  auditors 
and  comptrollers,  and  direct  them  how 
to  settle  every  man's  account;  what 


abatements  to  make  from  one,  what 
additions  to  another.  He  may  go  into 
the  custom-house,  among  collectors  and 
appraisers,  and  may  control,  estimates, 
reductions,  and  appraisements.  It  is 
true  that  these  officers  are  sworn  to  dis 
charge  the  duties  of  their  respective 
offices  honestly  and  fairly,  according  to 
their  own  best  abilities;  it  is  true,  that 
many  of  them  are  liable  to  indictment 
for  official  misconduct,  and  others  re 
sponsible,  in  suits  of  individuals,  for 
damages  and  penalties,  if  such  official 
misconduct  be  proved;  but  notwith 
standing  all  this,  the  Protest  avers  that 
all  these  officers  are  but  the  President'* 
ayents;  that  they  are  but  aiding  him  in 
the  discharge  of  hi*  duties;  that  he  is 
responsible  for  their  conduct,  and  that 
they  are  removable  at  his  will  and 
pleasure.  And  it  is  under  this  view 
of  his  own  authority  that  the  President 
calls  the  Secretaries  7m-  Secretaries,  not 
once  only,  but  repeatedly.  After  half 
a  century's  administration  of  this  gov 
ernment,  Sir;  —  after  we  have  endeav 
ored,  by  statute  upon  statute,  and  by 
provision  following  provision,  to  define 
and  limit  official  authority;  to  assign 
particular  duties  to  particular  public 
servants;  to  define  those  duties;  to 
create  penalties  for  their  violation ;  to 
adjust  accurately  the  responsibility  of 
each  agent  with  his  own  powers  and  his 
own  duties;  to  establish  the  prevalence 
of  equal  rule;  to  make  the  law,  as  far 
as  possible,  every  thing,  and  individual 
will,  as  far  as  possible,  nothing;  —  after 
all  this,  the  astounding  assertion  rings 
in  our  ears,  that,  throughout  the  whole 
range  of  official  agency,  in  its  smallest 
ramifications  as  well  as  in  its  larger 
masses,  there  is  but  ONE  RESPONSI 
BILITY,  ONE  DISCRETION,  ONE  WILL! 

True  indeed  is  it,  Sir,  if  these  senti 
ments  be  maintained,  —  true  indeed  is 
it  that  a  President  of  the  United  States 
may  well  repeat  from  Napoleon  what 
he  repeated  from  Louis  the  Fourteenth, 
"I  am  the  state  "! 

The  argument  by  which  the  writer  of 
the  Protest  endeavors  to  establish  the 
President's  claim  to  this  vast  mass  of 
accumulated  authority,  is  founded  on 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


389 


the  provision  of  the  Constitution  that 
the  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in 
the  President.  No  doubt  the  executive 
power  is  vested  in  the  President  ;  but 
what  and  how  much  executive  power, 
and  how  limited  ?  To  this  question  I 
should  answer,  "Look  to  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  see  ;  examine  the  particulars 
of  the  grant,  and  learn  what  that  exec 
utive  power  is  which  is  given  to  the 
President,  either  by  express  words  or 
by  necessary  implication."  But  so  the 
writer  of  this  Protest  does  not  reason. 
He  takes  these  words  of  the  Constitu 
tion  as  being,  of  themselves,  a  general 
original  grant  of  all  executive  power  to 
the  President,  subject  only  to  such  ex 
press  limitations  as  the  Constitution 
prescribes.  This  is  clearly  the  writer's 
view  of  the  subject,  unless,  indeed,  he 
goes  behind  the  Constitution  altogether, 
as  some  expressions  would  intimate,  to 
search  elsewhere  for  sources  of  execu 
tive  power.  Thus,  the  Protest  says 
that  it  is  not  only  the  right  of  the  Presi 
dent,  but  that  the  Constitution  makes 
it  his  duty,  to  appoint  persons  to  office; 
as  if  the  right  existed  before  the  Consti 
tution  had  created  the  duty.  It  speaks, 
too,  of  the  power  of  removal,  not  as  a 
power  granted  by  the  Constitution,  but 
expressly  as  "an  original  executive 
power,  left  unchecked  by  the  Constitu 
tion."  How  original?  Coming  from 
what  source  higher  than  the  Constitu 
tion?  I  should  be  glad  to  know  how 
the  President  gets  possession  of  any 
power  by  a  title  earlier,  or  more  origi 
nal,  than  the  grant  of  the  Constitution ; 
or  what  is  meant  by  an  original  power, 
which  the  President  possesses,  and 
which  the  Constitution  has  left  un 
checked  in  his  hands.  The  truth  is, 
Sir,  most  assuredly,  that  the  writer  of 
the  Protest,  in  these  passages,  was 
reasoning  upon  the  British  constitution, 
and  not  upon  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Indeed,  he  professes  to 
found  himself  on  authority  drawn  from 
the  constitution  of  England.  I  will 
read,  Sir,  the  whole  passage.  It  is 
this :  — 

"  In  strict  accordance  with  this  principle, 
the  power  of  removal,  which,  like  that  of 


appointment,  is  an  original  executive  power, 
is  left  unchecked  by  the  Constitution  in  re 
lation  to  all  executive  officers,  for  whoso 
conduct  the  President  is  responsible  ;  while 
it  is  taken  from  him  in  relation  to  judicial 
officers,  for  whose  acts  he  is  not  responsi 
ble.  In  the  government  from  which  many  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  our  system  are 
derived,  the  head  of  the  executive  dejjartment 
originally  had  power  to  appoint  and  remove  at 
will,  all  officers,  executive  and  judicial.  It 
was  to  take  the  judges  out  of  this  general 
power  of  removal,  and  thus  make  them 
independent  of  the  executive,  that  the  ten 
ure  of  their  offices  was  changed  to  good 
behavior.  Nor  is  it  conceivable  why  they 
are  placed,  in  our  Constitution,  upon  a 
tenure  different  from  that  of  all  other 
officers  appointed  by  the  executive,  unless 
it  be  for  the  same  purpose." 

Mr.  President,  I  do  most  solemnly 
protest  (if  I,  too,  may  be  permitted  to 
make  a  protest)  against  this  mode  of 
reasoning.  The  analogy  between  the* 
British  constitution  and  ours,  in  this 
respect,  is  not  close  enough  to  guide  us 
safely;  it  can  only  mislead  us.  It  has 
entirely  misled  the  writer  of  the  Pro 
test.  The  President  is  made  to  argue, 
upon  this  subject,  as  if  he  had  some 
right  anterior  to  the  Constitution,  wThich 
right  is  by  that  instrument  checked,  in 
some  respects,  and  in  other  respects  is 
left  unchecked,  but  which,  nevertheless, 
still  derives  its  being  from  another 
source;  just  as  the  British  king  had, 
•in  the  early  ages  of  the  monarchy,  an 
uncontrolled  right  of  appointing  and 
removing  all  officers  at  pleasure,  but 
which  right,  so  far  as  it  respects  the 
judges,  has  since  been  checked  and  con 
trolled  by  act  of  Parliament ;  the  right 
being  original  and  inherent,  the  check 
only  imposed  by  law.  Sir,  I  distrust 
altogether  British  precedents,  author 
ities,  and  analogies,  on  such  questions 
as  this.  We  are  not  inquiring  how 
far  our  Constitution  has  imposed  checks 
on  a  pre-existing  authority.  We  are 
inquiring  what  extent  of  power  that 
Constitution  has  granted.  The  grant  of 
power,  the  whole  source  of  power,  as 
well  as  the  restrictions  and  limitations 
which  are  imposed  on  it,  is  made  in  and 
by  the  Constitution.  It  has  no  other 


390 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   PROTEST. 


origin.  And  it  is  this,  Sir,  which  dis 
tinguishes  our  system  so  very  widely 
and  materially  from  the  systems  of 
Europe.  Our  governments  are  limited 
governments;  limited  in  their  origin, 
in  their  very  creation ;  limited,  because 
none  but  specific  powers  were  ever 
granted,  either  to  any  department  of 
government,  or  to  the  whole:  theirs  are 
limited,  whenever  limited  at  all,  by  rea 
son  of  restraints  imposed  at  different 
times  on  governments  originally  un 
limited  and  despotic.  Our  American 
questions,  therefore,  must  be  discussed, 
reasoned  on,  decided,  and  settled,  on 
the  appropriate  principles  of  our  own 
constitutions,  and  not  by  inapplicable 
precedents  and  loose  analogies  drawn 
from  foreign  states. 

Mr.  President,  in  one  of  the  French 
comedies,  as  you  know,  in  which  the 
dulness  and  prolixity  of  legal  argument 
is  intended  to  be  severely  satirized, 
while  the  advocate  is  tediously  groping 
among  ancient  lore  having  nothing  to 
do  with  his  case,  the  judge  grows  impa 
tient,  and  at  last  cries  out  to  him  to 
comedown  to  the  flood  !  I  really  wish, 
Sir,  that  the  writer  of  this  Protest,  since 
he  was  discussing  matters  of  the  highest 
importance  to  us  as  Americans,  and 
which  arise  out  of  our  own  peculiar 
Constitution,  had  kept  himself,  not  only 
on  this  side  the  general  deluge,  but  also 
on  this  side  the  Atlantic.  I  desire  that 
the  broad  waves  of  that  wide  sea  should 
continue  to  roll  between  us  and  the  in 
fluence  of  those  foreign  principles  and 
foreign  precedents  which  he  so  eagerly 
adopts. 

In  asserting  power  for  an  American 
President,  I  prefer  that  he  should  at 
tempt  to  maintain  his  assertions  on 
American  reasons.  I  know  not,  Sir, 
who  the  writer  was  (I  wish  I  did) ;  but 
whoever  he  was,  it  is  manifest  that  he 
argues  this  part  of  his  case,  throughout, 
on  the  principles  of  the  constitution  of 
England.  It  is  true,  that,  in  England, 
the  king  is  regarded  as  the  original 
fountain  of  all  honor  and  all  office;  and 
that  anciently,  indeed,  he  possessed  all 
political  power  of  every  kind.  It  is 
true  that  this  mass  of  authority,  in  the 


progress  of  that  government,  has  been 
diminished,  restrained,  and  controlled, 
by  charters,  by  immunities,  by  grants, 
and  by  various  modifications,  which  the 
friends  of  liberty  have,  at  different  pe 
riods,  been  able  to  obtain  or  to  impose. 
All  liberty,  as  we  know,  all  popular 
privileges,  as  indeed  the  word  itself  im 
ports,  were  formerly  considered  as  favors 
and  concessions  from  the  monarch.  But 
whenever  and  wherever  civil  freedom 
could  get  a  foothold,  and  could  maintain 
itself,  these  favors  were  turned  into 
rights.  Before  and  during  the  reigns 
of  the  princes  of  the  Stuart  family,  they 
were  acknowledged  only  as  favors  or 
privileges  graciously  allowed,  although, 
even  then,  whenever  opportunity  of 
fered,  as  in  the  instance  to  which  I 
alluded  just  now,  they  were  contended 
for  as  rights ;  and  by  the  Revolution  of 
1688  they  were  acknowledged  as  the 
rights  of  Englishmen,  by  the  prince 
who  then  ascended  the  throne,  and  as 
the  condition  on  which  he  was  allowed 
to  sit  upon  it.  But  with  us  there  never 
was  a  time  when  we  acknowledged 
original,  unrestrained,  sovereign  power 
over  us.  Our  constitutions  are  not 
made  to  limit  and  restrain  pre-existing 
authority.  They  are  the  instruments  by 
which  the  people  confer  power  on  their 
own  servants.  If  I  may  use  a  legal 
phrase,  the  people  are  grantors,  not 
grantees.  They  give  to  the  government, 
and  to  each  branch  of  it,  all  the  power 
it  possesses,  or  can  possess;  and  what  is 
not  given  they  retain.  In  England,  be 
fore  her  revolution,  and  in  the  rest  of 
Europe  since,  if  we  would  know  the  ex 
tent  of  liberty  or  popular  right,  we  must 
go  to  grants,  to  charters,  to  allowances, 
and  indulgences.  But  with  us,  we  go 
to  grants  and  to  constitutions  to  learn 
the  extent  of  the  powers  of  government. 
No  political  power  is  more  original  than 
the  Constitution;  none  is  possessed 
which  is  not  there  granted;  and  the 
grant,  and  the  limitations  in  the  grant, 
are  in  the  same  instrument. 

The  powers,  therefore,  belonging  to 
any  branch  of  our  government,  are  to 
be  construed  and  settled,  not  by  remote 
analogies  drawn  from  other  govern- 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST, 


391 


ments,  but  from  the  words  of  the  grant 
itself,  in  their  plain  sense  and  necessary 
import,  and  according  to  an  interpreta 
tion  consistent  with  our  own  history  and 
the  spirit  of  our  own  institutions.  I 
will  never  agree  that  a  President  of  the 
United  States  holds  the  whole  undivided 
power  of  office  in  his  own  hands,  upon 
the  theory  that  he  is  responsible  for  the 
entire  action  of  the  whole  body  of  those 
engaged  in  carrying  on  the  government 
and  executing  the  laws.  Such  a  respon 
sibility  is  purely  ideal,  delusive,  and 
vain.  There  is,  there  can  be,  no  sub 
stantial  responsibility,  any  further  than 
every  individual  is  answerable,  not 
merely  in  his  reputation,  not  merely  in 
the  opinion  of  mankind,  but  to  the  law, 
for  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  own  ap 
propriate  duties.  Again  and  again  we 
hear  it  said  that  the  President  is  respon 
sible  to  the  American  people !  that  he  is 
responsible  to  the  bar  of  public  opinion ! 
For  whatever  he  does,  he  assumes  ac 
countability  to  the  American  people! 
For  whatever  he  omits,  he  expects  to  be 
brought  to  the  high  bar  of  public  opin 
ion  !  And  this  is  thought  enough  for  a 
limited,  restrained,  republican  govern 
ment!  an  undefined,  undefinable,  ideal 
responsibility  to  the  public  judgment! 

Sir,  if  all  this  mean  any  thing,  if  it  be 
not  empty  sound,  it  means  no  less  than 
thai;  the  President  may  do  any  thing  and 
every  thing  which  he  may  expect  to  be 
tolerated  in  doing.  He  may  go  just  so 
far  as  he  thinks  it  safe  to  go ;  and  Crom 
well  and  Bonaparte  went  no  farther.  I 
ask  again,  Sir,  is  this  legal  responsi 
bility?  Is  this  the  true  nature  of  a  gov 
ernment  with  written  laws  and  limited 
powers?  And  allow  me,  Sir,  to  ask, 
too,  if  an  executive  magistrate,  while 
professing  to  act  under  the  Constitution, 
is  restrained  only  by  this  responsibility 
to  public  opinion,  what  prevents  him, 
on  the  same  responsibility,  from  propos 
ing  a  change  in  that  Constitution?  Why 
may  he  not  say,  "  I  am  about  to  intro 
duce  new  forms,  new  principles,  and  a 
new  spirit;  I  am  about  to  try  a  political 
experiment  on  a  great  scale ;  and  when 
I  get  through  with  it,  I  shall  be  respon 
sible  to  the  American  people,  I  shall  be 


answerable  to  the  bar  of  public  opin 
ion  "? 

Connected,  Sir,  with  the  idea  of  this 
airy  and  unreal  responsibility  to  the 
public  is  another  sentiment,  which  of 
late  we  hear  frequently  expressed;  and 
that  is,  that  the  President  is  the  direct  rep 
resentative  of  the  American  people.  This 
is  declared  in  the  Protest  in  so  many 
words.  "  The  President,"  it  says,  "  is 
the  direct  representative  of  the  American 
people."  Now,  Sir,  this  is  not  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Constitution.  The  Con 
stitution  nowhere  calls  him  the  repre 
sentative  of  the  American  people;  still 
less,  their  direct  representative.  It  could 
not  do  so  with  the  least  propriety.  He 
is  not  chosen  directly  by  the  people,  but 
by  a  body  of  electors,  some  of  whom  are 
chosen  by  the  people,  and  some  of  whom 
are  appointed  by  the  State  legislatures. 
Where,  then,  is  the  authority  for  saying 
that  the  President  is  the  direct  represent 
ative  of  the  people  f  The  Constitution 
calls  the  members  of  the  other  house 
Representatives,  and  declares  that  they 
shall  be  chosen  by  the  people ;  and  there 
are  no  other  direct  or  immediate  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people  in  this  govern 
ment.  The  Constitution  denominates 
the  President  simply  the  President  of 
the  United  States;  it  points  out  the 
complex  mode  of  electing  him,  defines 
his  powers  and  duties,  and  imposes  lim 
its  and  restraints  on  his  authority.  With 
these  powers  and  duties,  and  under  these 
restraints,  he  becomes,  when  chosen, 
President  of  the  United  States.  That 
is  his  character,  and  the  denomination 
of  his  office.  How  is  it,  then,  that,  on 
this  official  character,  thus  cautiously 
created,  limited,  and  defined,  he  is  to 
engraft  another  and  a  very  imposing 
character,  namely,  the  character  of  the  di 
rect  representative  of  the  American  people  ? 
I  hold  this,  Sir,  to  be  mere  assumption, 
and  dangerous  assumption.  If  he  is 
the  representative  of  all  the  American 
people,  he  is  the  only  representative 
which  they  all  have.  Nobody  else  pre 
sumes  to  represent  all  the  people.  And 
if  he  may  be  allowed  to  consider  him 
self  as  the  SOLE  REPRESENTATIVE  OF 
ALL  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE,  and  is  to 


392 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


act  under  no  other  responsibility  than 
such  as  I  have  already  described,  then  I 
say,  Sir,  that  the  government  (I  will  not 
say  the  people)  has  already  a  master. 
I  deny  the  sentiment,  therefore,  and  I 
protest  against  the  language;  neither 
the  sentiment  nor  the  language  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  coun 
try;  and  whoever  is  not  satisfied  to  de 
scribe  the  powers  of  the  President  in 
the  language  of  the  Constitution  may 
be  justly  suspected  of  being  as  little 
satisfied  with  the  powers  themselves. 
The  President  is  President.  His  office 
and  his  name  of  office  are  known,  and 
both  are  fixed  and  described  by  law. 
Being  commander  of  the  army  and 
navy,  holding  the  power  of  nominating 
to  office  and  removing  from  office,  and 
being  by  these  powers  the  fountain  of 
all  patronage  and  all  favor,  what  does 
he  not  become  if  he  be  allowed  to  super- 
add  to  all  this  the  character  of  single 
representative  of  the  American  people? 
Sir,  he  becomes  what  America  has  not 
been  accustomed  to  see,  what  this  Con 
stitution  has  never  created,  and  what  I 
cannot  contemplate  but  with  profound 
alarm.  He  who  may  call  himself  the 
single  representative  of  a  nation  may 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  nation,  may 
undertake  to  wield  the  power  of  the 
nation;  and  who  shall  gainsay  him  in 
whatsoever  he  chooses  to  pronounce  to 
be  the  nation's  will? 

I  will  now,  Sir,  ask  leave  to  recapitu 
late  the  general  doctrines  of  this  Protest, 
and  to  present  them  together.  They 
are,  — 

That  neither  branch  of  the  legislature 
can  take  up,  or  consider,  for  the  purpose 
of  censure,  any  official  act  of  the  Presi 
dent,  without  some  view  to  legislation 
or  impeachment; 

That  not  only  the  passage,  but  the 
discussion,  of  the  resolution  of  the  Sen 
ate  of  the  28th  of  March,  was  unauthor 
ized  by  the  Constitution,  and  repugnant 
to  its  provisions; 

That  the  custody  of  the  public  treas 
ury  always  must  be  intrusted  to  the 
executive;  that  Congress  cannot  take  it 
out  of  his  hands,  nor  place  it  anywhere 
except  under  such  superintendents  and 


keepers  as  are  appointed  by  him,  re 
sponsible  to  him,  and  removable  at  his 
will;  * 

That  the  whole  executive  power  is  in 
the  President,  and  that  therefore  the 
duty  of  defending  the  integrity  of  the 
Constitution  results  to  him  from  the  very 
nature  of  his  office;  and  that  the  found 
ers  of  our  republic  have  attested  their 
sense  of  the,  importance  of  this  duty, 
and,  by  expressing  it  in  his  official  oath, 
have  given  to  it  peculiar  solemnity  and 
force ; 

That,  as  he  is  to  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed,  he  is  there 
by  made  responsible  for  the  entire  action 
of  the  executive  department,  with  the 
power  of  appointing,  overseeing,  and 
controlling  those  who  execute  the  laws ; 

That  the  power  of  removal  from  office, 
like  that  of  appointment,  is  an  original 
executive  power,  and  is  left  in  his  hands 
unchecked  by  the  Constitution,  except  in 
the  case  of  judges;  that,  being  respon 
sible  for  the  exercise  of  the  whole  exec 
utive  power,  he  has  a  right  to  employ 
agents  of  his  owrn  choice  to  assist  him  in 
the  performance  of  his  duties,  and  to 
discharge  them  when  he  is  no  longer 
willing  to  be  responsible  for  their  acts; 

That  the  Secretaries  are  his  Secre 
taries,  and  all  persons  appointed  to  of 
fices  created  by  law,  except  the  judges, 
his  agents,  responsible  to  him,  and  re 
movable  at  his  pleasure; 

And,  finally,  that  he  is  the  direct  rep- 
resentatice  of  the  American  people. 

These,  Sir,  are.  some  of  the  leading 
propositions  contained  in  the  Protest; 
and  if  they  be  true,  then  the  government 
under  which  we  live  is  an  elective  mon 
archy.  It  is  not  yet  absolute ;  there  are 
yet  some  checks  and  limitations  in  the 
Constitution  and  laws;  but,  in  its  es 
sential  and  prevailing  character,  it  is  an 
elective  monarchy. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  spoken  freely 
of  this  Protest,  and  of  the  doctrines 
which  it  advances;  but  I  have  spoken 
deliberately.  On  these  high  questions 
of  constitutional  law,  respect  for  my 
own  character,  as  well  as  a  solemn  and 
profound  sense  of  duty,  restrains  me 
from  giving  utterance  to  a  single  senti- 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  PROTEST. 


393 


ment  which  does  not  flow  from  entire 
conviction.  I  feel  that  I  am  not  wrong. 
I  feel  that  an  inborn  and  inbred  love  of 
constitutional  liberty,  and  some  study 
of  our  political  institutions,  have  not  on 
this  occasion  misled  rne.  But  I  have 
desired  to  say  nothing  that  should  give 
pain  to  the  chief  magistrate  personally. 
I  have  not  sought  to  fix  arrows  in  his 
breast;  but  I  believe  him  mistaken,  al 
together  mistaken,  in  the  sentiments 
which  he  has  expressed;  and  I  must 
concur  with  others  in  placing  on  the 
records  of  the  Senate  my  disapprobation 
of  those  sentiments.  On  a  vote  which 
is  to  remain  so  long  as  any  proceeding  of 
the  Senate  shall  last,  and  on  a  question 
which  can  never  cease  to  be  important 
while  the  Constitution  of  the  country 
endures,  I  have  desired  to  make  public 
my  reasons.  They  will  now  be  known, 
and  I  submit  them  to  the  judgment  of 
the  present  and  of  after  times.  Sir,  the 
occasion  is  full  of  interest.  It  cannot 


pass  off  without  leaving  strong  impres 
sions  on  the  character  of  public  men. 
A  collision  has  taken  place  which  I 
could  have  most  anxiously  wished  to 
avoid;  but  it  was  not  to  be  shunned. 
We  have  not  sought  this  controversy ;  it 
has  met  us,  and  been  forced  upon  us. 
In  my  judgment,  the  law  has  been  dis 
regarded,  and  the  Constitution  trans 
gressed  ;  the  fortress  of  liberty  has  been 
assaulted,  and  circumstances  have  placed 
the  Senate  in  the  breach;  and,  although 
we  may  perish  in  it,  I  know  we  shall 
not  fly  from  it.  But  I  am  fearless  of 
consequences.  We  shall  hold  on,  Sir, 
and  hold  out,  till  the  people  themselves 
come  to  its  defence.  We  shall  raise  the 
alarm,  and  maintain  the  post,  till  they 
whose  right  it  is  shall  decide  whether 
the  Senate  be  a  faction,  wantonly  re 
sisting  lawful  power,  or  whether  it  be 
opposing,  with  firmness  and  patriotism, 
violations  of  liberty  and  inroads  upon 
the  Constitution. 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  16TH  OF  FEB 
RUARY,  1835,  ON  THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  BILL,  ENTITLED  "AN  ACT  TO 
REPEAL  THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND  SECTIONS  OF  THE  ACT  TO  LIMIT  THE 
TERM  OF  SERVICE  OF  CERTAIN  OFFICERS  THEREIN  NAMED." 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  professed  ob 
ject  of  this  bill  is  the  reduction  of  execu 
tive  influence  and  patronage.  I  concur 
in  the  propriety  of  that  object.  Having 
no  wish  to  diminish  or  to  control,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  constitutional  and 
legal  authority  of  the  presidential  office, 
I  yet  think  that  the  indirect  and  rapidly 
increasing  influence  which  it  possesses, 
and  which  arises  from  the  power  of 
bestowing  office  and  of  taking  it  away 
again  at  pleasure,  and  from  the  manner 
in  which  that  power  seems  now  to  be 
systematically  exercised,  is  productive 
of  serious  evils. 

The  extent  of  the  patronage  spring 
ing  from  this  power  of  appointment  and 
removal  is  so  great,  that  it  brings  a  dan 
gerous  mass  of  private  and  personal  in 
terest  into  operation  in  all  great  public 
elections  and  public  questions.  This  is 
a  mischief  which  has  reached,  already, 
an  alarming  height.  The  principle  of 
republican  governments,  we  are  taught, 
is  public  virtue;  and  whatever  tends 
either  to  corrupt  this  principle,  to  de 
base  it,  or  to  weaken  its  force,  tends,  in 
the  same  degree,  to  the  final  overthrow 
of  such  governments.  Our  representa 
tive  systems  suppose,  that,  in  exercising 
the  high  right  of  suffrage,  the  greatest 
of  all  political  rights,  and  in  forming 
opinions  on  great  public  measures,  men 
will  act  conscientiously,  under  the  influ 
ence  of  public  principle  and  patriotic 
duty ;  and  that,  in  supporting  or  oppos 


ing  men  or  measures,  there  will  be  a 
general  prevalence  of  honest,  intelligent 
judgment  and  manly  independence. 
These  presumptions  lie  at  the  founda 
tion  of  all  hope  of  maintaining  gov 
ernments  entirely  popular.  Whenever 
personal,  individual,  or  selfish  motives 
influence  the  conduct  of  individuals  on 
public  questions,  they  affect  the  safety 
of  the  whole  system.  When  these  mo 
tives  run  deep  ,and  wide,  and  come  in 
serious  conflict  with  higher,  purer,  and 
more  patriotic  purposes,  they  greatly 
endanger  that  system;  and  all  will  ad 
mit  that,  if  they  become  general  and 
overwhelming,  so  that  all  public  prin 
ciple  is  lost  sight  of,  and  every  election 
becomes  a  mere  scramble  for  office,  the 
system  inevitably  must  fall.  Every 
wise  man,  in  and  out  of  government, 
will  endeavor,  therefore,  to  promote  the 
ascendency  of  public  virtue  and  public 
principle,  and  to  restrain  as  far  as  prac 
ticable,  in  the  actual  operation  of  our 
institutions,  the  influence  of  selfish  and 
private  interests. 

I  concur  with  those  who  think,  that, 
looking  to  the  present,  and  looking  also 
to  the  future,  and  regarding  all  the 
probabilities  that  await  us  in  reference 
to  the  character  and  qualities  of  those 
who  may  fill  the  executive  chair,  it  is 
important  to  the  stability  of  government 
and  the  welfare  of  the  people  that  there 
should  be  a  check  to  the  progress  of 
official  influence  and  patronage.  The 


THE  APPOINTING  AND  REMOVING  POWER. 


395 


unlimited  power  to  grant  office,  and  to 
take  it  away,  gives  a  command  over  the 
hopes  and  fears  of  a  vast  multitude  of 
men.  It  is  generally  true,  that  he  who 
controls  another  man's  means  of  living 
controls  his  will.  Where  there  are  fa 
vors  to  be  granted,  there  are  usually 
enough  to  solicit  for  them;  and  when 
favors  once  granted  may  be  withdrawn 
at  pleasure,  there  is  ordinarily  little 
security  for  personal  independence  of 
character.  The  power  of  giving  office 
thus  affects  the  fears  of  all  who  are  in, 
and  the  hopes  of  all  who  are  out. 
Those  who  are  out  endeavor  to  distin 
guish  themselves  by  active  political 
friendship,  by  warm  personal  devotion, 
by  clamorous  support  of  men  in  whose 
hands  is  the  power  of  reward;  while 
those  who  are  in  ordinarily  take  care 
that  others  shall  not  surpass  them  in 
such  qualities  or  such  conduct  as  are 
most  likely  to  secure  favor.  They  re 
solve  not  to  be  outdone  in  any  of  the 
works  of  partisanship.  The  conse 
quence  of  all  this  is  obvious.  A  com 
petition  ensues,  not  of  patriotic  labors; 
not  of  rough  and  severe  toils  for  the 
public  good;  not  of  manliness,  inde 
pendence,  and  public  spirit;  but  of 
complaisance,  of  indiscriminate  support 
of  executive  measures,  of  pliant  sub 
serviency  and  gross  adulation.  All 
throng  and  rush  together  to  the  altar 
of  man- worship;  and  there  they  offer 
sacrifices,  and  pour  out  libations,  till 
the  thick  fumes  of  their  incense  turn 
their  own  heads,  and  turn,  also,  the 
head  of  him  who  is  the  object  of  their 
idolatry. 

The  existence  of  parties  in  popular 
governments  is  not  to  be  avoided ;  and 
if  they  are  formed  on  constitutional 
questions,  or  in  regard  to  great  meas 
ures  of  public  policy,  and  do  not  run  to 
excessive  length,  it  may  be  admitted 
that,  on  the  whole,  they  do  no  great 
harm.  But  the  patronage  of  office,  the 
power  of  bestowing  place  and  emolu 
ments,  creates  parties,  not  upon  any 
principle  or  any  measure,  but  upon  the 
single  ground  of  personal  interest.  Un 
der  the  direct  influence  of  this  motive, 
they  form  round  a  leader,  and  they  go 


for  "  the  spoils  of  victory."  And  if  the 
party  chieftain  becomes  the  national 
chieftain,  he  is  still  but  too  apt  to  con 
sider  all  who  have  opposed  him  as  ene- 
•mies  to  be  punished,  and  all  who  have 
supported  him  as  friends  to  be  rewarded. 
Blind  devotion  to  party,  and  to  the  head 
of  a  party,  thus  takes  place  of  the  senti 
ment  of  generous  patriotism  and  a  high 
and  exalted  sense  of  public  duty. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  Sir,  that  the  dan 
ger  from  executive  patronage  cannot  be 
great,  since  the  persons  who  hold  office, 
or  can  hold  office,  constitute  so  small  a 
portion  of  the  whole  people. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  remem 
bered  that  patronage  acts,  not  only  on 
those  who  actually  possess  office,  but  on 
those  also  who  expect  it,  or  hope  for  it; 
and  in  the  next  place,  office-holders,  by 
their  very  situation,  their  public  station, 
their  connection  with  the  business  of 
individuals,  their  activity,  their  ability 
to  help  or  to  hurt  according  to  their 
pleasure,  their  acquaintance  with  public 
affairs,  and  their  zeal  and  devotion,  ex 
ercise  a  degree  of  influence  out  of  all 
proportion  to  their  numbers. 

Sir,  we  cannot  disregard  our  own  ex 
perience.  We  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to 
what  is  around  us  and  upon  us.  No 
candid  man  can  deny  that  a  great,  a 
very  great  change  has  taken  place, 
within  a  few  years,  in  the  practice  of 
the  executive  government,  which  has 
produced  a  corresponding  change  in  our 
political  condition.  No  one  can  deny 
that  office,  of  every  kind,  is  now  sought 
with  extraordinary  avidity,  and  that  the 
condition,  well  understood  to  be  attached 
to  every  officer,  high  or  low,  is  indis 
criminate  support  of  executive  measures 
and  implicit  obedience  to  executive  will. 
For  these  reasons,  Sir,  I  am  for  arrest 
ing  the  further  progress  of  this  execu 
tive  patronage,  if  we  can  arrest  it;  I  am 
for  staying  the  further  contagion  of  this 
plague. 

The  bill  proposes  two  measures.  One 
is  to  alter  the  duration  of  certain  offices, 
now  limited  absolutely  to  four  years ;  so 
that  the  limitation  shall  be  qualified  or 
conditional.  If  the  officer  is  in  default, 
if  his  accounts  are  not  settled,  if  he  re- 


396 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


tains  or  misapplies  the  public  money, 
information  is  to  be  given  thereof,  and 
thereupon  his  commission  is  to  cease. 
But  if  his  accounts  are  all  regularly  set 
tled,  if  he  collects  and  disburses  the 
public  money  faithfully,  then  he  is  to 
remain  in  office,  unless,  for  some  other 
cause,  the  President  sees  fit  to  remove 
him.  This  is  the  provision  of  the  bill. 
It  applies  only  to  certain  enumerated 
officers,  who  may  be  called  accounting 
officers;  that  is  to  say,  officers  who  re 
ceive  and  disburse  the  public  money. 
Formerly,  all  these  officers  held  their 
places  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President. 
If  he  saw  no  just  cause  for  removing 
them,  they  continued  in  their  situations, 
no  fixed  period  being  assigned  for  the  ex 
piration  of  their  commissions.  But  the 
act  of  1820  limited  the  commissions  of 
these  officers  to  four  years.  At  the  end 
of  four  years,  they  were  to  go  out,  with 
out  any  removal,  however  well  they 
might  have  conducted  themselves,  or 
however  useful  to  the  public  their  fur 
ther  continuance  in  office  might  be. 
They  might  be  nominated  again,  or 
might  not;  but  their  commissions  ex 
pired. 

Now,  Sir,  I  freely  admit  that  consid 
erable  benefit  has  arisen  from  this  law. 
I  agree  that  it  has,  in  some  instances, 
secured  promptitude,  diligence,  and  a 
sense  of  responsibility.  These  were 
the  benefits  which  those  who  passed  the 
law  expected  from  it ;  and  these  benefits 
have,  in  some  measure,  been  realized. 
But  I  think  that  this  change  in  the  ten 
ure  of  office,  together  with  some  good, 
has  brought  along  a  far  more  than 
equivalent  amount  of  evil.  By  the 
operation  of  this  law,  the  President  can 
deprive  a  man  of  office  without  taking 
the  responsibility  of  removing  him. 
The  law  itself  vacates  the  office,  and 
gives  the  means  of  rewarding  a  friend 
without  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  re 
moval  at  all.  Here  is  increased  power, 
with  diminished  responsibility.  Here 
is  a  still  greater  dependence,  for  the 
means  of  living,  on  executive  favor, 
and,  of  course,  a  new  dominion  acquired 
over  opinion  and  over  conduct.  The 
power  of  removal  is,  or  at  least  formerly 


was,  a  suspected  and  odious  power. 
Public  opinion  would  not  always  toler 
ate  it;  llnd  still  less  frequently  did  it 
approve  it.  Something  of  character, 
something  of  the  respect  of  the  intelli 
gent  and  patriotic  part  of  the  commu 
nity,  was  lost  by  every  instance  of  its 
unnecessary  exercise.  This  was  some 
restraint.  But  the  law  of  1820  took  it 
all  away.  It  vacated  offices  periodically, 
by  its  own  operation,  and  thus  added  to 
the  power  of  removal,  which  it  left  still 
existing  in  full  force,  a  new  and  ex 
traordinary  facility  for  the  extension  of 
patronage,  influence,  and  favoritism. 

I  would  ask  every  member  of  the  Sen 
ate  if  he  does  not  perceive,  daily,  effects 
which  may  be  fairly  traced  to  this  cause. 
Does  he  not  see  a  union  of  purpose,  a 
devotion  to  power,  a  co-operation  in 
action,  among  all  who  hold  office,  quite 
unknown  in  the  earlier  periods  of  the 
government?  Does  he  not  behold,  every 
hour,  a  stronger  development  of  the 
principle  of  personal  attachment,  and  a 
corresponding  diminution  of  genuine 
and  generous  public  feeling?  Was  in 
discriminate  support  of  party  measures, 
was  unwavering  fealty,  was  regular  suit 
and  service,  ever  before  esteemed  such 
important  and  essential  parts  of  official 
duty? 

Sir,  the  theory  of  our  institutions  is 
plain ;  it  is,  that  government  is  an  agency 
created  for  the  good  of  the  people,  and 
that  every  person  in  office  is  the  agent 
and  servant  of  the  people.  Offices  are 
created,  not  for  the  benefit  of  those  who 
are  to  fill  them,  but  for  the  public  con 
venience;  and  they  ought  to  be  no  more 
in  number,  nor  should  higher  salaries 
be  attached  to  them,  than  the  public 
service  requires.  This  is  the  theory. 
But  the  difficulty  in  practice  is,  to  pre 
vent  a  direct  reversal  of  all  this;  to  pre 
vent  public  offices  from  being  considered 
as  intended  for  the  use  and  emolument  of 
those  who  can  obtain  them.  There  is  a 
headlong  tendency  to  this,  and  it  is  ne 
cessary  to  restrain  it  by  wise  and  effect 
ive  legislation.  There  is  still  another, 
and  perhaps  a  greatly  more  mischievous 
result,  of  extensive  patronage  in  the 
hands  of  a  single  magistrate,  to  which  I 


THE   APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


397 


have  already  incidentally  alluded;  and 
that  is,  that  men  in  office  have  begun  to 
think  themselves  mere  agents  and  ser 
vants  of  the  appointing  power,  and  not 
agents  of  the  government  or  the  country. 
It  is,  in  an  especial  manner,  important, 
if  it  be  practicable,  to  apply  some  cor 
rective  to  this  kind  of  feeling  and  opin 
ion.  It  is  necessary  to  bring  back 
public  officers  to  the  conviction,  that 
they  belong  to  the  country,  and  not  to 
any  administration,  nor  to  any  one  man. 
The  army  is  the  army  of  the  country ; 
the  navy  is  the  navy  of  the  country ;  nei 
ther  of  them  is  either  the  mere  instru 
ment  of  the  administration  for  the  time 
being,  nor  of  him  who  is  at  the  head 
of  it.  The  post-office,  the  land-office, 
the  custom-house,  are,  in  like  manner, 
institutions  of  the  country,  established 
for  the  good  of  the  people ;  and  it  may 
well  alarm  the  lovers  of  free  institutions, 
when  all  the  offices  in  these  several  de 
partments  are  spoken  of,  in  high  places, 
as  being  but  "  spoils  of  victory,"  to  be 
enjoyed  by  those  who  are  successful  in  a 
contest,  in  which  they  profess  this  grasp 
ing  of  the  spoils  to  have  been  the  object 
of  their  efforts. 

This  part  of  the  bill,  therefore,  Sir, 
is  a  subject  for  fair  comparison.  We 
have  gained  something,  doubtless,  by 
limiting  the  commissions  of  these  offi 
cers  to  four  years.  But  have  we  gained 
as  much  as  we  have  lost?  And  may 
not  the  good  be  preserved,  and  the  evil 
still  avoided?  Is  it  not  enough  to  say, 
that  if,  at  the  end  of  four  years,  moneys 
are  retained,  accounts  unsettled,  or  other 
duties  unperformed,  the  office  shall  be 
held  to  be  vacated,  without  any  positive 
act  of  removal? 

For  one,  I  think  the  balance  of  ad 
vantage  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the 
present  bill.  I  think  it  will  make  men 
more  dependent  on  their  own  good  con 
duct,  and  less  dependent  on  the  will  of 
others.  I  believe  it  will  cause  them  to 
regard  their  country  more,  their  own 
duty  more,  and  the  favor  of  individuals 
less.  I  think  it  will  contribute  to  offi 
cial  respectability,  to  freedom  of  opin 
ion,  to  independence  of  character;  and  I 
think  it  will  tend,  in  no  small  degree,  to 


prevent  the  mixture  of  selfish  and  per 
sonal  motives  with  the  exercise  of  high 
political  duties.  It  will  promote  true 
and  genuine  republicanism,  by  causing 
the  opinion  of  the  people  respecting  the 
'measures  of  government,  and  the  men 
in  government,  to  be  formed  and  ex 
pressed  without  fear  or  favor,  and  with 
a  more  entire  regard  to  their  true  and 
real  merits  or  demerits.  It  will  be,  so 
far  as  its  effects  reach,  an  auxiliary  to 
patriotism  and  public  virtue,  in  their 
warfare  against  selfishness  and  cupidity. 

The  second  check  on  executive  patron 
age  contained  in  this  bill  is  of  still 
greater  importance  than  the  first.  This 
provision  is,  that,  whenever  the  Presi 
dent  removes  any  of  these  officers  from 
office,  he  shall  state  to  the  Senate  the 
reasons  for  such  removal.  This  part  of 
the  bill  has  been  opposed,  both  on  con 
stitutional  grounds  and  t)n  grounds  of 
expediency. 

The  bill,  it  is  to  be  observed,  ex 
pressly  recognizes  and  admits  the  actual 
existence  of  the  power  of  removal.  I 
do  not  mean  to  deny,  and  the  bill  does 
not  deny,  that,  at  the  present  moment, 
the  President  may.  remove  these  offi 
cers  at  will,  because  the  early  decision 
adopted  that  construction,  and  the  laws 
have  since  uniformly  sanctioned  it. 
The  law  of  1820,  intended  to  be  re 
pealed  by  this  bill,  expressly  affirms 
the  power.  I  consider  it,  therefore,  a 
settled  point;  settled  by  construction, 
settled  by  precedent,  settled  by  the 
practice  of  the  government,  and  settled 
by  statute.  At  the  same  time,  after 
considering  the  question  again  and 
again  within  the  last  six  years,  I  am 
very  willing  to  say,  that,  in  my  delib 
erate  judgment,  the  original  decision 
was  wrong.  I  cannot  but  think  that 
those  who  denied  the  power  in  1789 
had  the  best  of  the  argument;  and  yet 
I  will  not  say  that  I  know  myself  so 
thoroughly  as  to  affirm,  that  this  opin 
ion  may  not  have  been  produced,  in 
some  measure,  by  that  abuse  of  the 
power  which  has  been  passing  before 
our  eyes  for  several  years.  It  is  possi 
ble  that  this  experience  of  the  evil  may 
have  affected  my  view  of  the  constitu- 


398 


THE   APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


tional  argument.  It  appears  to  me, 
however,  after  thorough  and  repeated 
and  conscientious  examination,  that  an 
erroneous  interpretation  was  given  to 
the  Constitution,  in  this  respect,  by  the 
decision  of  the  first  Congress;  and  I 
will  ask  leave  to  state,  shortly,  the  rea 
sons  for  that  opinion,  although  there  is 
nothing  in  this  bill  which  proposes  to 
disturb  that  decision. 

The  Constitution  nowhere  says  one 
word  of  the  power  of  removal  from 
office,  except  in  the  case  of  conviction 
on  impeachment.  Wherever  the  power 
exists,  therefore,  except  in  cases  of  im 
peachment,  it  must  exist  as  a  construc 
tive  or  incidental  power.  If  it  exists 
in  the  President  alone,  it  must  exist  in 
him  because  it  is  attached  to  something 
else,  or  included  in  something  else,  or 
results  from  something  else,  which  is 
granted  to  the  President.  There  is  cer 
tainly  no  specific  grant;  it  is  a  power, 
therefore,  the  existence  of  which,  if 
proved  at  all,  is  to  be  proved  by  infer 
ence  and  argument.  In  the  only  in 
stance  in  which  the  Constitution  speaks 
of  removal  from  office,  as  I  have  already 
said,  it  speaks  of  it  as  the  exercise  of 
judicial  power;  that  is  to  say,  it  speaks 
of  it  as  one  part  of  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate,  in  cases  of  conviction  on  im 
peachment.  No  other  mention  is  made, 
in  the  whole  instrument,  of  any  power 
of  removal.  Whence,  then,  is  the  power 
derived  to  the  President? 

It  is  usually  said,  by  those  who  main 
tain  its  existence  in  the  single  hands  of 
the  President,  that  the  power  is  derived 
from  that  clause  of  the  Constitution 
which  says,  "The  executive  power 
shall  be  vested  in  a  President."  The 
power  of  removal,  they  argue,  is,  in  its 
nature,  an  executive  power;  and,  as  the 
executive  power  is  thus  vested  in  the 
President,  thepowrerof  removal  is  neces 
sarily  included. 

It  is  true,  that  the  Constitution  de 
clares  that  the  executive  power  shall 
be  vested  in  the  President;  but  the 
first  question  which  then  arises  is, 
What  is  executive  power?  What  is  the 
degree,  and  what  are  the  limitations  f  Ex 
ecutive  power  is  not  a  thing  so  well 


known,  and  so  accurately  defined,  as 
that  the  written  constitution  of  a 
limited .  government  can  be  supposed 
to  have  conferred  it  in  the  lump. 
What  is  executive  power?  What  are 
its  boundaries  ?  What  model  or  exam 
ple  had  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
in  their  minds,  when  they  spoke  of 
"executive  power"?  Did  they  mean 
executive  power  as  known  in  England, 
or  as  known  in  France,  or  as  known  in 
Russia?  Did  they  take  it  as  defined  by 
Montesquieu,  by  Burlamaqui,  or  by  De 
Lolme?  All  these  differ  from  one  an 
other  as  to  the  extent  of  the  executive 
power  of  government.  What,  then,  was 
intended  by  "the  executive  power"? 
Now,  Sir,  I  think  it  perfectly  plain  and 
manifest,  that,  although  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  meant  to  confer  execu 
tive  power  on  the  President,  yet  they 
meant  to  define  and  limit  that  power, 
and  to  confer  no  more  than  they  did 
thus  define  and  limit.  When  they  say 
it  shall  be  vested  in  a  President,  they 
mean  that  one  magistrate,  to  be  called 
a  President,  shall  hold  the  executive 
authority;  but  they  mean,  further,  that 
he  shall  hold  this  authority  according  to 
the  grants  and  limitations  of  the  Con 
stitution  itself. 

They  did  not  intend,  certainly,  a 
sweeping  gift  of  prerogative.  They  did 
not  intend  to  grant  to  the  President 
whatever  might  be  construed,  or  sup 
posed,  or  imagined  to  be  executive 
power;  and  the  proof  that  they  meant 
no  such  thing  is,  that,  immediately 
after  using  these  general  words,  they 
proceed  specifically  to  enumerate  his 
several  distinct  and  particular  authori 
ties;  to  fix  and  define  them;  to  give 
the  Senate  an  essential  control  over  the 
exercise  of  some  of  them,  and  to  leave 
others  uncontrolled.  By  the  executive 
power  conferred  on  the  President,  the 
Constitution  means  no  more  than  that 
portion  which  itself  creates,  and  which 
it  qualifies,  limits,  and  circumscribes. 

A  general  survey  of  the  frame  of  the 
Constitution  will  satisfy  us  of  this. 
That  instrument  goes  all  along  upon 
the  idea  of  dividing  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment,  so  far  as  practicable,  into 


THE  APPOINTING  AND  REMOVING  POWER. 


399 


three  great  departments.  It  describes 
the  powers  and  duties  of  these  depart 
ments  in  an  article  allotted  to  each. 
As  first  in  importance  and  dignity,  it 
begins  with  the  legislative  department. 
The  first  article  of  the  Constitution, 
therefore,  commences  with  the  declara 
tion,  that  "  all  legislative  power  herein 
granted  shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  which  shall  consist 
of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representa 
tives."  The  article  goes  on  to  prescribe 
the  manner  in  which  Congress  is  to  be 
constituted  and  organized,  and  then  pro 
ceeds  to  enumerate,  specifically,  the  powers 
intended  to  be  granted ;  and  adds  the  gen 
eral  clause,  conferring  such  authority 
as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  granted 
powers  into  effect.  Now,  Sir,  no  man 
doubts  that  this  is  a  limited  legislature; 
that  it  possesses  no  powers  but  such  as 
are  granted  by  express  words  or  neces 
sary  implication;  and  that  it  would  be 
quite  preposterous  to  insist  that  Con 
gress  possesses  any  particular  legislative 
power,  merely  because  it  is,  in  its 
nature,  a  legislative  body,  if  no  grant 
can  be  found  for  it  in  the  Constitution 
itself. 

Then  comes,  Sir,  the  second  article, 
creating  an  executive  power;  and  it 
declares,  that  "the  executive  power 
shall  be  vested  in  a  President  of  the 
United  States."  After  providing  for 
the  mode  of  choosing  him,  it  immedi 
ately  proceeds  to  enumerate,  specifically, 
the  powers  which  he  shall  possess  and 
exercise,  and  the  duties  which  he  shall 
perform.  I  consider  the  language  of 
this  article,  therefore,  precisely  analo 
gous  to  that  in  which  the  legislature  is 
created;  that  is  to  say,  I  understand  the 
Constitution  as  saying  that  "  the  execu 
tive  power  herein  granted  shall  be  vested 
in  a  President  of  the  United  States." 

In  like  manner,  the  third  article,  or 
that  which  is  intended  to  arrange  the 
judicial  system,  begins  by  declaring 
that  "  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  vested  in  one  Supreme 
Court,  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as 
the  Congress  may,  from  time  to  time, 
ordain  and  establish."  But  these  gen 
eral  words  do  not  show  what  extent  of 


judicial  power  is  vested  in  the  courts  of 
the  United  States.  All  that  is  left  to 
be  done,  and  is  done,  in  the  following 
sections,  by  express  and  well-guarded 
f  provisions. 

I  think,  therefore,  Sir,  that  very 
great  caution  is  to  be  used,  and  the 
ground  well  considered,  before  we  ad 
mit  that  the  President  derives  any  dis 
tinct  and  specific  power  from  those 
general  words  which  vest  the  executive 
authority  in  him.  The  Constitution 
itself  does  not  rest  satisfied  with  these 
general  words.  It  immediately  goes 
into  particulars,  and  carefully  enumer 
ates  the  several  authorities  which  the 
President  shall  possess.  The  very  first 
of  the  enumerated  powers  is  the  com 
mand  of  the  army  and  navy.  This, 
most  certainly,  is  an  executive  power. 
And  why  is  it  particularly  set  down  and 
expressed,  if  any  power  was  intended  to 
be  granted  under  the  general  words? 
This  would  pass,  if  any  thing  would 
pass,  under  those  words.  But  enumer 
ation,  specification,  particular  ization, 
was  evidently  the  design  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution,  in  this  as  in  other 
parts  of  it.  I  do  not,  therefore,  regard 
the  declaration  that  the  executive  power 
shall  be  vested  in  a  President  as  being 
any  grant  at  all;  any  more  than  the 
declaration  that  the  legislative  power 
shall  be  vested  in  Congress  constitutes, 
by  itself,  a  grant  of  such  power.  In 
the  one  case,  as  in  the  other,  I  think 
the  object  was  to  describe  and  denomi 
nate  the  department,  which  should  hold, 
respectively,  the  legislative  and  the  ex 
ecutive  authority;  very  much  as  we  see, 
in  some  of  the  State  constitutions,  that 
the  several  articles  are  headed  with  the 
titles  "legislative  power,"  "executive 
power,"  "judicial  power";  and  this 
entitling  of  the  articles  with  the  name 
of  the  power  has  never  been  supposed, 
of  itself,  to  confer  any  authority  what 
ever.  It  amounts  to  no  more  than 
naming  the  departments. 

If,  then,  the  power  of  removal  be 
admitted  to  be  an  executive  power,  still 
it  must  be  sought  for  and  found  among 
the  enumerated  executive  powers,  or 
fairly  implied  from  some  one  or  more 


400 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


of  them.  It  cannot  be  implied  from 
the  general  words.  The  power  of  ap 
pointment  was  not  left  to  be  so  implied ; 
why,  then,  should  the  power  of  removal 
have  been  so  left?  They  are  both 
closely  connected ;  one  is  indispensable 
to  the  other;  why,  then,  was  one  care 
fully  expressed,  defined,  and  limited, 
and  not  one  word  said  about  the  other? 
Sir,  I  think  the  whole  matter  is  suffi 
ciently  plain.  Nothing  is  said  in  the 
Constitution  about  the  power  of  re 
moval,  because  it  is  not  a  separate  and 
distinct  power.  It  is  part  of  the  power 
of  appointment,  naturally  going  with  it 
or  necessarily  resulting  from  it.  The 
Constitution  or  the  laws  may  separate 
these  powers,  it  is  true,  in  a  particular 
case,  as  is  done  in  respect  to  the  judges, 
who,  though  appointed  by  the  President 
and  Senate,  cannot  be  removed  at  the 
pleasure  of  either  or  of  both.  So  a 
statute,  in  prescribing  the  tenure  of  any 
other  office,  may  place  the  officer  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  appointing  power.  But 
where  no  other  tenure  is  prescribed,  and 
officers  hold  their  places  at  will,  that 
will  is  necessarily  the  will  of  the  ap 
pointing  power;  because  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  appointment  at  once  dis 
places  such  officers.  The  power  of  plac 
ing  one  man  in  office  necessarily  implies 
the  power  of  turning  another  out.  If 
one  man  be  Secretary  of  State,  and  an 
other  be  appointed,  the  first  goes  out  by 
the  mere  force  of  the  appointment  of 
the  other,  without  any  previous  act  of 
removal  whatever.  And  this  is  the 
practice  of  the  government,  and  has 
been,  from  the  first.  In  all  the  re 
movals  which  have  been  made,  they 
have  generally  been  effected  simply  by 
making  other  appointments.  I  cannot 
find  a  case  to  the  contrary.  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  any  distinct  official  act 
of  removal.  I  have  looked  into  the 
practice,  and  caused  inquiries  to  be 
made  in  the  departments,  and  I  do  not 
learn  that  any  such  proceeding  is  known 
as  an  entry  or  record  of  the  removal  of 
an  officer  from  office;  and  the  President 
could  only  act,  in  such  cases,  by  causing 
some  proper  record  or  entry  to  be  made, 
as  proof  of  the  fact  of  removal.  I  am 


aware  that  there  have  been  some  cases 
in  which  notice  has  been  sent  to  persons 
in  office  that  their  services  are,  or  will 
be,  after  a  given  day,  dispensed  with. 
These  are  usually  cases  in  which  the 
object  is,  not  to  inform  the  incumbent 
tnat  he  is  removed,  but  to  tell  him  that 
a  successor  either  is,  or  by  a  day  named 
will  be,  appointed.  If  there  be  any 
instances  in  which  such  notice  is  given 
without  express  reference  to  the  ap 
pointment  of  a  successor,  they  are  few ; 
and  even  in  these,  such  reference  must 
be  implied;  because  in  no  case  is  there 
any  distinct  official  act  of  removal,  that 
I  can  find,  unconnected  with  the  act  of 
appointment.  At  any  rate,  it  is  the 
usual  practice,  and  has  been  from  the 
first,  to  consider  the  appointment  as 
producing  the  removal  of  the  previous 
incumbent.  When  the  President  de 
sires  to  remove  a  person  from  office,  he 
sends  a  message  to  the  Senate  nominat 
ing  some  other  person.  The  message 
usually  runs  in  this  form:  "  I  nominate 
A.  B.  to  be  collector  of  the  customs,  &c., 
in  the  place  of  C.  I).,  removed."  If 
the  Senate  advise  and  consent  to  this 
nomination,  C.  D.  is  effectually  out  of 
office,  and  A.  B.  is  in,  in  his  place. 
The  same  effect  would  be  produced,  if 
the  message  should  say  nothing  of  any 
removal.  Suppose  A.  B.  to  be  Secre 
tary  of  State,  and  the  President  to  send 
us  a  message,  saying  merely,  'k  I  nomi 
nate  C.  1).  to  be  Secretary  of  State." 
If  we  confirm  this  nomination,  C.  D. 
becomes  Secretary  of  State,  and  A.  B. 
is  necessarily  removed. 

I  have  gone  into  these  details  and  par 
ticulars,  Sir,  for  the  purpose  of  showing, 
that,  not  only  in  the  nature  of  things, 
but  also  according  to  the  practice  of  the 
government,  the  power  of  removal  is  in 
cident  to  the  power  of  appointment.  It 
belongs  to  it,  is  attached  to  it,  forms  a 
part  of  it,  or  results  from  it. 

If  this  be  true,  the  inference  is  mani 
fest.  If  the  power  of  removal,  when 
not  otherwise  regulated  by  Constitution 
or  law,  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  power 
of  appointment,  or  a  necessary  incident 
to  it,  then  whoever  holds  the  power  of 
appointment  holds  also  the  power  of  re- 


THE   APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING   POWER. 


401 


moval.  But  it  is  the  President  and  the 
Senate,  and  not  the  President  alone,  who 
hold  the  power  of  appointment;  and 
therefore,  according  to  the  true  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution,  it  should 
be  the  President  and  Senate,  and  not 
the  President  alone,  who  hold  the  power 
of  removal. 

The  decision  of  1789  has  been  followed 
by  a  very  strange  and  indefensible  anom 
aly,  showing  that  it  does  not  rest  on  any 
just  principle.  The  natural  connection 
between  the  appointing  power  and  the 
removing  power  has,  as  I  have  already 
stated,  always  led  the  President  to  bring 
about  a  removal  by  the  process  of  a  new 
appointment.  This  is  quite  efficient  for 
his  purpose,  when  the  Senate  confirms 
the  new  nomination.  One  man  is  then 
turned  out,  and  another  put  in.  But 
the  Senate  sometimes  rejects  the  new 
nomination;  and  what  then  becomes  of 
the  old  incumbent?  Is  he  out  of  office, 
or  is  he  still  in?  He  has  not  been  turned 
out  by  any  exercise  of  the  power  of  ap 
pointment,  for  no  appointment  has  been 
made.  That  power  has  not  been  exer 
cised.  He  has  not  been  removed  by  any 
distinct  and  separate  act  of  removal,  for 
no  such  act  has  been  performed,  or  at 
tempted.  Is  he  still  in,  then,  or  is  he 
out?  Where  is  he?  In  this  dilemma, 
Sir,  those  who  maintain  the  power  of 
removal  as  existing  in  the  President 
alone  are  driven  to  what  seems  to  me 
very  near  absurdity.  The  incumbent 
has  not  been  removed  by  the  appointing 
power,  since  the  appointing  power  has 
not  been  exercised.  He  has  not  been  re 
moved  by  any  distinct  and  independent 
act  of  removal,  since  no  such  act  has  been 
performed. 

They  are  forced  to  the  necessity,  there 
fore,  of  contending  that  the  removal  has 
been  accomplished  by  the  mere  nomina 
tion  of  a  successor;  so  that  the  removing 
power  is  made  incident,  not  to  the  ap 
pointing  power,  but  to  one  part  of  it; 
that  is,  to  the  nominating  power.  The 
nomination,  not  having  been  assented 
to  by  the  Senate,  it  is  clear,  has  failed, 
as  the  first  step  in  the  process  of  appoint 
ment.  But  though  thus  rendered  null 
and  void  in  its  main  object,  as  the  first 


process  in  making  an  appointment,  it  is 
held  to  be  good  and  valid,  nevertheless, 
to  bring  about  that  which  results  from  an 
appointment ;  that  is,  the  removal  of  the 
person  actually  in  office.  In  other  words, 
the  nomination  produces  the  consequen 
ces  of  an  appointment,  or  some  of  them, 
though  it  be  itself  no  appointment,  and 
effect  no  appointment.  This,  Sir,  ap 
pears  to  me  to  be  any  thing  but  sound 
reasoning  and  just  construction. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  President  has 
sometimes  sent  us  a  nomination  to  an 
office  already  filled,  and,  before  we  have 
acted  upon  it,  has  seen  fit  to  withdraw 
it.  What  is  the  effect  of  such  a  nomina 
tion?  If  a  nomination,  merely  as  such, 
turns  out  the  present  incumbent,  then 
he  is  out,  let  what  will  become  after 
wards  of  the  nomination.  But  I  believe 
the  President  has  acted  upon  the  idea 
that  a  nomination  made,  and  at  any 
time  afterwards  withdrawn,  does  not  re 
move  the  actual  incumbent. 

Sir,  even  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  in 
consistencies  into  which  the  prevailing 
doctrine  has  led.  There  have  been  cases 
in  which  nominations  to  offices  already 
filled  have  come  to  the  Senate,  remained 
here  for  weeks,  or  months,  the  incum 
bents  all  the  while  continuing  to  dis 
charge  their  official  duties,  and  relin 
quishing  their  offices  only  when  the 
nominations  of  their  successors  have 
been  confirmed,  and  commissions  issued 
to  them;  so  that,  if  a  nomination  be 
confirmed,  the  nomination  itself  makes  no 
removal;  the  removal  then  waits  to  be 
brought  about  by  the  appointment.  But 
if  the  nomination  be  rejected,  then  the 
nomination  itself,  it  is  contended,  has 
effected  the  removal.  AVho  can  defend 
opinions  which  lead  to  such  results? 

These  reasons,  Sir,  incline  me  strongly 
to  the  opinion,  that,  upon  a  just  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution,  the  power 
of  removal  is  part  of,  or  a  necessary  re 
sult  from,  the  power  of  appointment, 
and,  therefore,  that  it  ought  to  have  been 
exercised  by  the  Senate  concurrently 
with  the  President. 

The  argument  may  be  strengthened 
by  various  illustrations.  The  Constitu 
tion  declares  that  Congress  may  vest,  the 


402 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING   POWER. 


appointment  of  inferior  officers  in  the 
President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  law,  or 
in  the  heads  of  departments;  and  Con 
gress  has  passed  various  acts  providing 
for  appointments,  according  to  this  reg 
ulation  of  the  Constitution.  Thus  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  other  courts  of  the 
United  States,  have  authority  to  appoint 
their  clerks ;  heads  of  departments  also 
appoint  their  own  clerks,  according  to 
statute  provisions ;  and  it  has  never  been 
doubted  that  these  courts,  and  these  heads 
of  departments,  may  remove  their  clerks 
at  pleasure,  although  nothing  is  said  in 
the  laws  respecting  such  powerof  removal. 
Now,  it  is  evident  that  neither  the  courts 
nor  the  heads  of  departments  acquire  the 
right  of  removal  under  a  general  grant 
of  executive  power,  for  none  such  is 
made  to  them ;  nor  upon  the  ground  of 
any  general  injunction  to  see  the  laws 
executed,  for  no  such  general  injunction 
is  addressed  to  them.  They  neverthe 
less  hold  the  power  of  removal,  as  all 
admit,  and  they  must  hold  it,  therefore, 
simply  as  incident  to,  or  belonging  to, 
the  power  of  appointment.  There  is  no 
other  clause  under  which  they  can  possi 
bly  claim  it. 

Again,  let  us  suppose  that  the  Con 
stitution  had  given  to  the  President  the 
power  of  appointment,  without  consult 
ing  the  Senate.  Suppose  it  had  said, 
"  The  President  shall  appoint  ambassa 
dors,  other  public  ministers,  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers 
of  the  United  States. "  If  the  Constitu 
tion  had  stood  thus,  the  President  would 
unquestionably  have  possessed  the  power 
of  removal,  where  the  tenure  of  office 
was  not  fixed;  and  no  man,  I  imagine, 
would  in  that  case  have  looked  for  the 
removing  power  either  in  that  clause 
which  says  the  executive  authority  shall 
be  vested  in  the  President,  or  in  that 
other  clause  which  makes  it  his  duty  to 
see  the  laws  faithfully  executed.  Every 
body  would  have  said,  "  The  President 
possesses  an  uncontrolled  power  of  ap 
pointment,  and  that  necessarily  carries 
with  it  an  uncontrolled  power  of  re 
moval,  unless  some  permanent  tenure  be 
given  to  the  office  by  the  Constitution, 
or  by  law." 


And  now,  Sir,  let  me  state,  and  ex 
amine,  the  main  argument,  on  which 
the  dec^ion  of  1789  appears  to  rest  it. 

The  most  plausible  reasoning  brought 
forward  on  that  occasion  may  be  fairly 
stated  thus:  "The  executive  power  is 
vested  in  the  President ;  this  is  the  gen 
eral  rule  of  the  Constitution.  The  asso 
ciation  of  the  Senate  with  the  President, 
in  exercising  a  particular  function  be 
longing  tc'  the  executive  power,  is  an 
exception  to  this  general  rule,  and  ex 
ceptions  to  general  rules  are  to  be  taken 
strictly;  therefore,  though  the  Senate 
partakes  of  the  appointing  power,  by  ex 
press  provision,  yet,  as  nothing  is  said  of 
its  participation  in  the  removing  power, 
such  participation  is  to  be  excluded." 

The  error  of  this  argument,  if  I  may 
venture  to  call  it  so,  considering  who 
used  it,1  lies  in  this.  It  supposes  the 
power  of  removal  to  be  held  by  the 
President  under  the  general  grant  of 
executive  power.  Now,  it  is  certain 
that  the  power  of  appointment  is  not 
held  under  that  general  grant,  because 
it  is  particularly  provided  for,  and  is 
conferred,  in  express  terms,  on  the 
President  and  Senate.  If,  therefore, 
the  power  of  removal  be  a  natural  ap 
pendage  to  the  power  of  appointment, 
then  it  is  not  conferred  by  the  general 
words  granting  executive  power  to  the 
President,  but  is  conferred  by  the  spe 
cial  clause  which  gives  the  appointing 
power  to  the  President  and  Senate.  So 
that  the  spirit  of  the  very  rule  on  which 
the  argument  of  1789,  as  I  have  stated 
it,  relies,  appears  to  me  to  produce  a 
directly  opposite  result;  for,  if  excep 
tions  to  a  general  rule  are  to  be  taken 
strictly,  when  expressed,  it  is  still  more 
clear,  when  they  are  not  expressed  at 
all,  that  they  are  not  to  be  implied  ex 
cept  on  evident  and  clear  grounds  ;  and 
as  the  general  power  of  appointment  is 
confessedly  given  to  the  President  and 
Senate,  no  exception  is  to  be  implied  in 
favor  of  one  part  of  that  general  power, 
namely,  the  removing  part,  unless  for 
some  obvious  and  irresistible  reason. 

1  Mr.  Madison.  See  the  discussion  in  Gales 
and  Seaton's  Debates  in  Congress,  Vol.  I.  p. 
473  et  seq. 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


403 


In  other  words,  this  argument  which  I 
am  answering  is  not  sound  in  its  prem 
ises,  and  therefore  not  sound  in  its  con 
clusion,  if  the  grant  of  the  power  of 
appointment  does  naturally  include  also 
the  power  of  removal,  when  this  last 
power  is  not  otherwise  expressly  pro 
vided  for;  because,  if  the  power  of 
removal  belongs  to  the  power  of  appoint 
ment,  or  necessarily  follows  it,  then  it 
has  gone  with  it  into  the  hands  of  the 
President  and  Senate ;  and  the  President 
does  not  hold  it  alone,  as  an  implication 
or  inference  from  the  grant  to  him  of 
general  executive  powers. 

The  true  application  of  that  rule  of 
construction,  thus  relied  on,  would  pre 
sent  the  argument,  I  think,  in  this 
form:  "  The  appointing  power  is  vested 
in  the  President  and  Senate;  this  is  the 
general  rule  of  the  Constitution.  The 
removing  power  is  part  of  the  appoint 
ing  power;  it  cannot  be  separated  from 
the  rest,  but  by  supposing  that  an  ex 
ception  was  intended;  but  all  exceptions 
to  general  rules  are  to  be  taken  strictly, 
even  when  expressed;  and,  for  a  much 
stronger  reason,  they  are  not  to  be  im 
plied,  when  not  expressed,  unless  inevita 
ble  necessity  of  construction  requires  it." 

On  the  whole,  Sir,  with  the  diffidence 
which  becomes  one  who  is  reviewing  the 
opinions  of  some  of  the  ablest  and  wisest 
men  of  the  age,  I  must  still  express  my 
own  conviction,  that  the  decision  of 
Congress  in  1789,  which  separated  the 
power  of  removal  from  the  power  of 
appointment,  was  founded  on  an  erro 
neous  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
and  that  it  has  led  to  great  inconsisten 
cies,  as  well  as  to  great  abuses,  in  the 
subsequent,  and  especially  in  the  more 
recent,  history  of  the  government. 

Much  has  been  said  now,  and  much 
was  said  formerly,  about  the  inconven 
ience  of  denying  this  power  to  the  Presi 
dent  alone.  I  agree  that  an  argument 
drawn  from  this  source  may  have  weight, 
in  a  doubtful  case;  but  it  is  not  to  be 
permitted  that  we  shall  presume  the  ex 
istence  of  a  power  merely  because  we 
think  it  would  be  convenient.  Nor  is 
there,  I  think,  any  such  glaring,  strik 
ing,  or  certain  inconvenience  as  has 


been  suggested.  Sudden  removals  from 
office  are  seldom  necessary ;  we  see  how 
seldom,  by  reference  to  the  practice  of 
the  government  under  all  administra 
tions  which  preceded  the  present.  And 
if  we  look  back  over  the  removals  which 
have  been  made  in  the  last  six  years, 
there  is  no  man  who  can  maintain  that 
there  is  one  case  in  a  hundred  in  which 
the  country  would  have  suffered  the 
least  inconvenience  if  no  removal  had 
been  made  without  the  consent  of  the 
Senate.  Party  might  have  felt  the  in 
convenience,  but  the  country  never. 
Many  removals  have  been  made  (by  new 
appointments)  during  the  session  of  the 
Senate;  and  if  there  has  occurred  one 
single  case,  in  the  whole  six  years,  in 
which  the  public  convenience  required 
the  removal  of  an  officer  in  the  recess, 
such  case  has  escaped  my  recollection. 
Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  being  remem 
bered,  when  we  are  seeking  for  the  true 
intent  of  the  Constitution  on  this  sub 
ject,  that  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that 
its  f  ramers  expected  the  Senate  would  be 
in  session  a  much  larger  part  of  the  year 
than  the  House  of  Representatives,  so 
that  its  concurrence  could  generally  be 
had,  at  once,  on  any  question  of  appoint 
ment  or  removal. 

But  this  argument,  drawn  from  the 
supposed  inconvenience  of  denying  an 
absolute  power  of  removal  to  the  Presi 
dent,  suggests  still  another  view  of  the 
question.  The  argument  asserts,  that; 
it  must  have  been  the  intention  of  the 
f  ramers  of  the  Constitution  to  confer 
the  power  on  the  President,  for  the  sake 
of  convenience,  and  as  an  absolutely 
necessary  power  in  his  hands.  Why, 
then,  did  they  leave  their  intent  doubt 
ful?  Why  did  they  not  confer  the  power 
in  express  terms  ?  Why  were  they  thus 
totally  silent  on  a  point  of  so  much  im* 
portarice? 

Seeing  that  the  removing  power  nat 
urally  belongs  to  the  appointing  power; 
seeing  that,  in  other  cases,  in  the  same 
Constitution,  its  f  ramers  have  left  the 
one  with  the  consequence  of  drawing 
the  other  after  it,  —  if,  in  this  instance, 
they  meant  to  do  what  was  uncommon 
and  extraordinary,  that  is  to  say,  if  they 


404 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


meant  to  separate  and  divorce  the  two 
powers,  why  did  they  not  say  so?  Why 
did  they  not  express  their  meaning  in 
plain  words?  Why  should  they  take 
up  the  appointing  power,  and  carefully 
define  it,  limit  it,  and  restrain  it,  and 
yet  leave  to  vague  inference  and  loose 
construction  an  equally  important  pow 
er,  which  all  must  admit  to  be  closely 
connected  with  it,  if  not  a  part  of  it? 
If  others  can  account  for  all  this  silence 
respecting  the  removing  power,  upon 
any  other  ground  than  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  regarded  both  powers 
as  one,  and  supposed  they  had  provided 
for  them  together,  I  confess  I  cannot. 
I  have  the  clearest  conviction,  that  they 
looked  to  no  other  mode  of  displacing 
an  officer  than  by  impeachment,  or  by 
the  regular  appointment  of  another  per 
son  to  the  same  place. 

But,  Sir,  whether  the  decision  of  1789 
were  right  or  wrong,  the  bill  before  us 
applies  to  the  actually  existing  state  of 
things.  It  recognizes  the  President's 
power  of  removal,  in  express  terms,  as 
it  has  been  practically  exercised,  inde 
pendently  of  the  Senate.  The  present 
bill  does  not  disturb  the  power;  but  I 
wish  it  not  to  be  understood  that  the 
power  is,  even  now,  beyond  the  reach 
of  legislation.  I  believe  it  to  be  within 
the  just  power  of  Congress  to  reverse 
the  decision  of  1789,  and  I  mean  to  hold 
myself  at  liberty  to  act,  hereafter,  upon 
that  question,  as  I  shall  think  the  safety 
of  the  government  and  of  the  Constitu 
tion  may  require.  The  present  bill, 
however,  proceeds  upon  the  admission 
that  the  power  does  at  present  exist. 
Its  words  are  :  — 

"Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That, 
in  all  nominations  made  by  the  President 
to  the  Senate,  to  fill  vacancies  occasioned 
by  the  exercise  of  the  President's  power  to 
remove  the  said  officers  mentioned  in  the 
second  section  of  this  act,  the  fact  of  the 
removal  shall  be  stated  to  the  Senate,  at 
the  same  time  that  the  nomination  is  made, 
with  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for  which 
such  officer  may  have  been  removed." 

In  my  opinion,  this  provision  is  en 
tirely  constitutional,  and  highly  expe 
dient. 


The  regulation  of  the  tenure  of  office 
is  a  common  exercise  of  legislative  au 
thority?  and  the  power  of  Congress  in 
this  particular  is  not  at  all  restrained  or 
limited  by  any  thing  contained  in  the 
Constitution,  except  in  reg.ard  to  judi 
cial  officers.  All  the  rest  is  left  to  the 
ordinary  discretion  of  the  legislature. 
Congress  may  give  to  offices  which  it 
creates  (except  those  of  judges)  what 
duration  it  pleases.  When  the  office  is 
created,  and  is  to  be  filled,  the  President 
is  to  nominate  the  candidate  to  fill  it; 
but  when  he  comes  into  the  office,  he 
comes  into  it  upon  the  conditions  and 
restrictions  which  the  law  may  have  at 
tached  to  it.  If  Congress  were  to  de 
clare  by  law  that  the  Attorney-General, 
or  the  Secretary  of  State,  should  hold 
his  office  during  good  behavior,  I  am 
not  aware  of  any  ground  on  which  such 
a  law  could  be  held  unconstitutional. 
A  provision  of  that  kind  in  regard  to 
such  officers  might  be  unwise,  but  I  do 
not  perceive  that  it  would  transcend  the 
power  of  Congress. 

If  the  Constitution  had  not  prescribed 
the  tenure  of  judicial  office,  Congress 
might  have  thought  it  expedient  to  give 
the  judges  just  such  a  tenure  as  the 
Constitution  has  itself  provided;  that  is 
to  say,  a  right  to  hold  during  good  be 
havior;  and  I  am  of  opinion  that  such  a 
law  would  have  been  perfectly  constitu 
tional.  It  is  by  law,  in  England,  that 
the  judges  are  made  independent  of  the 
removing  power  of  the  crown.  I  do  not 
think  that  the  Constitution,  by  giving 
the  po\ver  of  appointment,  or  the  power 
both  of  appointment  and  removal,  to 
the  President  and  Senate,  intended  to 
impose  any  restraint  on  the  legislature, 
in  regard  to  its  authority  of  regulating 
the  duties,  powers,  duration,  or  respon 
sibility  of  office.  I  agree,  that  Congress 
ought  not  to  do  any  thing  which  shall 
essentially  impair  that  right  of  nomina 
tion  and  appointment  of  certain  officers, 
such  as  ministers,  judges,  &c.,  which 
the  Constitution  has  vested  in  the  Presi 
dent  and  Senate.  But  \vhile  the  power 
of  nomination  and  appointment  is  left 
fairly  where  the  Constitution  has  placed 
it,  I  think  the  whole  field  of  regulation 


THE   APPOINTING   AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


405 


is  open  to  legislative  discretion.  If  a 
law  were  to  pass,  declaring  that  district 
attorneys,  or  collectors  of  customs,  should 
hold  their  offices  four  years,  unless  re 
moved  on  conviction  for  misbehavior, 
no  one  could  doubt  its  constitutional 
validity;  because  the  legislature  is  nat 
urally  competent  to  prescribe  the  tenure 
of  office.  And  is  a  reasonable  check  on 
the  power  of  removal  any  thing  more 
than  a  qualification  of  the  tenure  of  of 
fice?  Let  it  be  always  remembered, 
that  the  President's  removing  power,  as 
now  exercised,  is  claimed  and  held  under 
the  general  clause  vesting  in  him  the 
executive  authority.  It  is  implied,  or 
inferred,  from  that  clause  alone. 

Now,  if  it  is  properly  derived  from 
that  source,  since  the  Constitution  does 
not  say  how  it  shall  be  limited,  how  de 
fined,  or  how  carried  into  effect,  it  seems 
especially  proper  for  Congress,  under 
the  general  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  gives  it  authority  to  pass  all 
laws  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the 
powers  conferred  on  any  department,  to 
regulate  the  subject  of  removal.  And 
the  regulation  here  required  is  of  the 
gentlest  kind.  It  only  provides  that  the 
President  shall  make  known  to  the  Sen 
ate  his  reasons  for  removal  of  officers 
of  this  description,  when  he  does  see  fit 
to  remove  them.  It  might,  I  think, 
very  justly  go  farther.  It  might,  and 
perhaps  it  ought,  to  prescribe  the  form 
of  removal,  and  the  proof  of  the  fact. 
It  might,  I  also  think,  declare  that  the 
President  should  only  suspend  officers, 
at  pleasure,  till  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Senate,  according  to  the  amendment  sug 
gested  by  the  honorable  member  from 
Kentucky;  and,  if  the  present  practice 
cannot  be  otherwise  checked,  this  pro 
vision,  in  my  opinion,  ought  hereafter  to 
be  adopted.  But  I  am  content  with  the 
slightest  degree  of  restraint  which  may 
be  sufficient  to  arrest  the  totally  un 
necessary,  unreasonable,  and  dangerous 
exercise  of  the  power  of  removal.  I 
desire  only,  for  the  present  at  least, 
that,  when  the  President  turns  a  man 
out  of  office,  he  should  give  his  reasons 
for  it  to  the  Senate,  when  he  nominates 
another  person  to  fill  the  place.  Let 


him  give  these  reasons,  and  stand  on 
them.  If  they  are  fair  and  honest,  he 
need  have  no  fear  in  stating  them.  It 
isr  not  to  invite  any  trial;  it  is  not  to 
give  the  removed  officer  an  opportunity 
of  defence;  it  is  not  to  excite  contro 
versy  and  debate ;  it  is  simply  that  the 
Senate,  and  ultimately  the  public,  may 
know  the  grounds  of  removal.  1  deem 
this  degree  of  regulation,  at  least,  neces 
sary;  unless  we  are  willing  to  submit  all 
these  officers  to  an  absolute  and  a  per 
fectly  irresponsible  removing  power;  a 
power  which,  as  recently  exercised,  tends 
to  turn  the  whole  body  of  public  officers 
into  partisans,  dependants,  favorites, 
sycophants,  and  man-worshippers. 

Mr.  President,  without  pursuing  the 
discussion  further,  I  will  detain  the  Seri 
ate  only  while  I  recapitulate  the  opinions 
which  I  have  expressed;  because  I  am 
far  less  desirous  of  influencing  the  judg 
ment  of  others,  than  of  making  clear  the 
grounds  of  my  own  judgment. 

I  think,  then,  Sir,  that  the  power  of 
appointment  naturally  and  necessarily 
includes  the  power  of  removal  where  no 
limitation  is  expressed,  nor  any  tenure 
but  that  at  will  declared.  The  power 
of  appointment  being  conferred  on  the 
President  and  Senate,  I  think  the  power 
of  removal  went  along  with  it,  and 
should  have  been  regarded  as  a  part  of 
it,  and  exercised  by  the  same  hands.  I 
think,  consequently,  that  the  decision  of 
1789,  which  implied  a  power  of  removal 
separate  from  the  appointing  power,  was 
erroneous. 

But  I  think  the  decision  of  1789  has 
been  established  by  practice,  and  recog 
nized  by  subsequent  laws,  as  the  settled 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  and 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  act  upon  the  case 
accordingly,  for  the  present ;  without 
admitting  that  Congress  may  not,  here 
after,  if  necessity  shall  require  it,  re 
verse  the  decision  of  1789.  I  think  the 
legislature  possesses  the  power  of  regu 
lating  the  condition,  duration,  qualifica 
tion,  and  tenure  of  office,  in  all  cases 
where  the  Constitution  has  made  no  ex 
press  provision  on  the  subject. 

I  am,  therefore,  of  opinion,  that  it  is 
competent  for  Congress  to  declare  by 


406 


THE  APPOINTING  AND   REMOVING  POWER. 


law,  as  one  qualification  of  the  tenure 
of  office,  that  the  incumbent  shall  re 
main  in  place  till  the  President  shall 
remove  him,  for  reasons  to  be  stated  to 
the  Senate.  And  I  am  of  opinion  that 
this  qualification,  mild  and  gentle  as  it 


is,  will  have  some  effect  in  arresting  the 
evils  which  beset  the  progress  of  the 
government,  and  seriously  threaten  its 
future  prosperity. 

These  are  the  reasons  for  which  I  give 
my  support  to  this  bill. 


NOTE. 


THIS  speech  is  singular  among  the 
speeches  of  Mr.  Webster,  as  it  exhibits 
him  as  a  "  Strict-Constructionist,"  and  as  a 
master  of  that  peculiar  kind  of  deductive 
reasoning  which  is  commonly  considered 
the  special  distinction  of  his  great  antago 
nist,  Mr.  Calhoun.  In  subtilty  and  refine 
ment  of  argument  it  is  fully  the  match  of 
most  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  elaborate  disquisi 
tions.  At  the  time  of  its  delivery  it  ex 
cited  the  almost  savage  ire  of  John  Quincy 


Adams,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the 
latter's  "  Diary."  It  was  in  connection 
with  this  speech  that  Mr.  Adams  speaks 
of  "the  rotten  heart  of  Daniel  Webster." 
How  such  a  purely  intellectual  feat  as  this, 
one  so  entirely  passionless  and  impersonal, 
should  be  referred  to  rottenness  of  heart,  is 
one  of  the  unexplained  mysteries  of  the 
operations  of  Mr.  Adams's  understanding, 
when  that  understanding  was  misled  by 
personal  antipathy. 


ON  THE  LOSS  OF  THE  FORTIFICATION   BILL 

IN   1835. 


A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE 
KTH  OF  JANUARY,  1830,  ON  MR.  BENTON'S  RESOLUTIONS  FOR  APPROPRI 
ATING  THE  SURPLUS  REVENUE  TO  NATIONAL  DEFENCE. 


IT  is  not  my  purpose,  Mr.  President, 
to  make  any  remark  on  the  state  of  our 
affairs  with  France.  The  time  for  that 
discussion  has  not  come,  and  I  wait. 
We  are  in  daily  expectation  of  a  com 
munication  from  the  President,  which 
will  give  us  light;  and  we  are  author 
ized  to  expect  a  recommendation  by  him 
of  sucli  measures  as  he  thinks  it  may  be 
necessary  arid  proper  for  Congress  to 
adopt.  I  do  not  anticipate  him.  In 
this  most  important  and  delicate  busi 
ness,  it  is  the  proper  duty  of  the  exec 
utive  to  go  forward,  and  I,  for  one,  do 
not  intend  either  to  be  drawn  or  driven 
into  the  lead.  When  official  informa 
tion  shall  be  before  us,  and  when  meas 
ures  shall  be  recommended  upon  the 
proper  responsibility,  I  shall  endeavor 
to  form  the  best  judgment  I  can,  and 
shall  act  according  to  its  dictates. 

I  rise,  now,  for  another  purpose.  This 
resolution  has  drawn  on  a  debate  upon 
the  general  conduct  of  the  Senate  during 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  espe 
cially  in  regard  to  the  proposed  grant  of 
the  three  millions  to  the  President  on 
the  last  night  of  the  session.  My  main 
object  is  to  tell  the  story  of  this  transac 
tion,  and  to  exhibit  the  conduct  of  the 
Senate  fairly  to  the  public  view.  I  owe 
this  duty  to  the  Senate.  I  owe  it  to  the 
committee  with  which  I  am  connected ; 
and  although  whatever  is  personal  to  an 
individual  is  generally  of  too  little  im 
portance  to  be  made  the  subject  of  much 


remark,  I  hope  I  may  be  permitted  to 
say  a  few  words  in  defence  of  my  own 
reputation,  in  reference  to  a  matter  which 
has  been  greatly  misrepresented. 

This  vote  for  the  three  millions  was 
proposed  by  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  as  an  amendment  to  the  fortifica 
tion  bill;  and  the  loss  of  that  bill,  three 
millions  and  all,  is  the  charge  which  has 
been  made  upon  the  Senate,  sounded 
over  all  the  land,  and  now  again  re 
newed.  I  propose  to  give  the  true  his 
tory  of  this  bill,  its  origin,  its  progress, 
and  its  loss. 

Before  attempting  that,  however,  let 
me  remark,  for  it  is  worthy  to  be  re 
marked  and  remembered,  that  the  busi 
ness  brought  before  the  Senate  last 
session,  important  and  various  as  it  was, 
and  both  public  and  private,  was  all 
gone  through  with  most  uncommon  de 
spatch  and  promptitude.  No  session 
has  witnessed  a  more  complete  clearing- 
off  and  finishing  of  the  subjects  before 
us.  The  communications  from  the  other 
house,  whether  bills  or  whatever  else, 
were  especially  attended  to  in  a  proper 
season,  and  with  that  ready  respect  which 
is  due  from  one  house  to  the  other. 
I  recollect  nothing  of  any  importance 
which  came  to  us  from  the  House  of 
Representatives,  which  was  neglected, 
overlooked,  or  disregarded  by  the  Sen 
ate. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  misfor 
tune  of  the  Senate,  and,  as  I  think,  the 


408 


ON   THE  LOSS   OF   THE   FORTIFICATION   BILL  IN  1835. 


misfortune  of  the  country,  that,  owing 
to  the  state  of  business  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  towards  the  close  of  the 
session,  several  measures  which  had  been 
matured  in  the  Senate,  and  passed  into 
bills,  did  not  receive  attention,  so  as  to 
be  either  agreed  to  or  rejected,  in  the 
other  branch  of  the  legislature.  They 
fell,  of  course,  by  the  termination  of  the 
session. 

;  Among  these  measures  may  be  men 
tioned  the  following,  viz. :  — 

THE  POST-OFFICE  REFORM  BILL, 
which  passed  the  Senate  unanimously, 
and  of  the  necessity  for  which  the  whole 
country  is  certainly  now  most  abun 
dantly  satisfied; 

THE  CUSTOM-HOUSE  REGULATIONS 
BILL,  which  also  passed  nearly  unan 
imously,  after  a  very  laborious  prepara 
tion  by  the  Committee  on  Commerce, 
and  a  full  discussion  in  the  Senate; 

THE  JUDICIARY  BILL,  passed  here  by 
a  majority  of  thirty-one  to  five,  and 
which  has  again  already  passed  the  Seri 
ate  at  this  session  with  only  a  single  dis- 
senting»vote ; 

TlIE  BILL  INDEMNIFYING  CLAIMANTS 
FOR  FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS  BEFORE  1800; 

TlIE  BILL  REGULATING  THE  DEPOSIT 
OF  THE  PUBLIC  MONEY  IN  THE  DEPOSIT 
BANKS; 

THE  BILL  RESPECTING  THE  TENURE 
OF  CERTAIN  OFFICES,  AND  THE  POWER 
OF  REMOVAL  FROM  OFFICE;  which  has 
now  again  been  passed  to  be  engrossed, 
in  the  Senate,  by  a  decided  majority. 

All  these  important  measures,  matured 
and  passed  in  the  Senate  in  the  course 
of  the  session,  and  many  others  of  less 
importance,  were  sent  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  we  never  heard  any 
thing  more  from  them.  They  there 
found  their  graves. 

It  is  worthy  of  being  remarked,  also, 
that  the  attendance  of  members  of  the 
Senate  was  remarkably  full,  particularly 
toward  the  end  of  the  session.  On  the 
last  day,  every  Senator  was  in  his  place 
till  very  near  the  hour  of  adjournment, 
as  the  journal  will  show.  We  had  no 
breaking  up  for  want  of  a  quorum ;  no 
delay,  no  calls  of  the  Senate;  nothing 
which  was  made  necessary  by  the  negli 


gence  or  inattention  of  the  members  of 
this  body.  On  the  vote  of  the  three 
millions  of  dollars,  which  was  taken  at 
about  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  forty- 
eight  votes  were  given,  every  member 
of  the  Senate  being  in  his  place  and  an 
swering  to  his  name.  This  is  an  in 
stance  of  punctuality,  diligence,  and 
labor,  continued  to  the  very  end  of  an 
arduous  session,  wholly  without  exam 
ple  or  para]  lei. 

The  Senate,  then,  Sir,  must  stand,  in 
the  judgment  of  every  man,  fully  ac 
quitted  of  all  remissness,  all  negligence, 
all  inattention,  amidst  the  fatigue  and 
exhaustion  of  the  closing  hours  of  Con 
gress.  Nothing  passed  unheeded,  noth 
ing  was  overlooked,  nothing  forgotten, 
and  nothing  slighted. 

And  now,  Sir,  I  would  proceed  imme 
diately  to  give  the  history  of  the  fortifi 
cation  bill,  if  it  were  not  necessary,  as 
introductory  to  that  history,  and  as  snow 
ing  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
Senate  was  called  on  to  transact  the  pub 
lic  business,  first  to  refer  to  another  bill 
which  was  before  us,  and  to  the  proceed 
ings  which  were  had  upon  it. 

It  is  well  known,  Sir,  that  the  annual 
appropriation  bills  always  originate  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  This  is 
so  much  a  matter  of  course,  that  no  one 
ever  looks  to  see  such  a  bill  first  brought 
forward  in  the  Senate.  It  is  also  well 
known,  Sir,  that  it  has  been  usual,  here 
tofore,  to  make  the  annual  appropria 
tions  for  the  Military  Academy  at  West 
Point  in  the  general  bill  which  provides 
for  the  pay  and  support  of  the  army. 
But  last  year  the  army  bill  did  not  con 
tain  any  appropriation  whatever  for  the 
support  of  West  Point.  I  took  notice  of 
this  singular  omission  when  the  bill  was 
before  the  Senate,  but  presumed,  and 
indeed  understood,  that  the  House  would 
send  us  a  separate  bill  for  the  Military 
Academy.  The  army  bill,  therefore, 
passed;  but  no  bill  for  the  Academy  at 
West  Point  appeared.  We  waited  for 
it  from  day  to  day,  and  from  week  to 
week,  but  waited  in  vain.  At  length, 
the  time  for  sending  bills  from  one  house 
to  the  other,  according  to  the  joint  rules 
of  the  two  houses,  expired,  and  no  bill 


ON  THE  LOSS  OF  THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835. 


409 


had  made  its  appearance  for  the  support 
of  the  Military  Academy.  These  joint 
rules,  as  is  well  known,  are  sometimes 
suspended  on  the  application  of  one 
house  to  the  other,  in  favor  of  particular 
bills,  whose  progress  has  been  unexpect 
edly  delayed,  but  which  the  public  in 
terest  requires  to  be  passed.  But  the 
House  of  Representatives  sent  us  no  re 
quest  to  suspend  the  rules  in  favor  of 
a  bill  for  the  support  of  the  Military 
Academy,  nor  made  any  other  proposi 
tion  to  save  the  institution  from  imme 
diate  dissolution.  Notwithstanding  all 
the  talk  about  a  war,  and  the  necessity 
of  a  vote  for  the  three  millions,  the  Mil 
itary  Academy,  an  institution  cherished 
so  long,  and  at  so  much  expense,  was  on 
the  very  point  of  being  entirely  broken 
up. 

Now  it  so  happened,  Sir,  that  at  this 
time  there  was  another  appropriation 
bill  which  had  come  from  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  was  before  the 
Committee  on  Finance  here.  This  bill 
was  entitled  ' '  An  Act  making  appropri 
ations  for  the  civil  and  diplomatic  ex 
penses  of  the  government  for  the  year 
1835." 

In  this  state  of  things,  several  mem 
bers  of  the  House  of  Representatives  ap 
plied  to  the  committee,  and  besought  us 
to  save  the  Military  Academy  by  annex 
ing  the  necessary  appropriations  for  its 
support  to  the  bill  for  civil  and  diplo 
matic  service.  We  spoke  to  them,  in 
reply,  of  the  unfitness,  the  irregularity, 
the  incongruity,  of  this  forced  union  of 
such  dissimilar  subjects ;  but  they  told  us 
it  was  a  case  of  absolute  necessity,  and 
that,  without  resorting  to  this  mode, 
the  appropriation  could  not  get  through. 
We  acquiesced,  Sir,  in  these  suggestions. 
We  went  out  of  our  way.  We  agreed  to 
do  an  extraordinary  and  an  irregular 
thing,  in  order  to  save  the  public  busi 
ness  from  miscarriage.  By  direction  of 
the  committee,  I  moved  the  Senate  to 
add  an  appropriation  for  the  Military 
Academy  to  the  bill  for  defraying  civil 
and  diplomatic  expenses.  The  bill  was 
so  amended;  and  in  this  form  the  ap 
propriation  was  finally  made. 

But  this  was  not  all.     This  bill  for 


the  civil  and  diplomatic  service,  being 
thus  amended  by  tacking  the  Military 
Academy  to  it,  was  sent  back  by  us  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  where  its 
length  of  tail  was  to  be  still  much  fur 
ther  increased.  That  house  had  before 
it  several  subjects  for  provision,  and  for 
appropriation,  upon  which  it  had  not 
passed  any  bill  before  the  time  for  pass 
ing  bills  to  be  sent  to  the  Senate  had 
elapsed.  I  was  anxious  that  these 
things  should,  in  some  way,  be  provided 
for;  and  when  the  diplomatic  bill  came 
back,  drawing  the  Military  Academy 
after  it,  it  was  thought  prudent  to  at 
tach  to  it  several  of  these  other  provis 
ions.  There  were  propositions  to  pave 
the  streets  in  the  city  of  Washington, 
to  repair  the  Capitol,  and  various  other 
things,  which  it  was  necessary  to  pro 
vide  for;  and  they,  therefore,  were  put 
into  the  same  bill,  by  way  of  amend 
ment  to  an  amendment;  that  is  to  say, 
Mr.  President,  we  had  been  prevailed 
on  to  amend  their  bill  for  defraying  the 
salary  of  our  ministers  abroad,  by  add 
ing  an  appropriation  for  the  Military 
Academy,  and  they  proposed  to  amend 
this  our  amendment  by  adding  matter 
as  germane  to  it  as  it  was  itself  to  the 
original  bill.  There  was  also  the  Presi 
dent's  gardener.  His  salary  was  unpro 
vided  for;  and  there  was  no  way  of 
remedying  this  important  omission,  but 
by  giving  him  place  in  the  diplomatic 
service  bill,  among  charges  d'affaires, 
envoys  extraordinary,  and  ministers 
plenipotentiary.  In  and  among  these 
ranks,  therefore,  he  was  formally  intro 
duced  by  the  amendment  of  the  House, 
and  there  he  now  stands,  as  you  will 
readily  see  by  turning  to  the  law. 

Sir,  I  have  not  the  pleasure  to  know 
this  useful  person ;  but  should  I  see  him, 
some  morning,  overlooking  the  work 
men  in  the  lawns,  walks,  copses,  and 
parterres  which  adorn  the  grounds 
around  the  President's  residence,  con 
sidering  the  company  into  which  we 
have  introduced  him,  I  should  expect 
to  see,  at  least,  a  small  diplomatic  but 
ton  on  his  working  jacket. 

When  these  amendments  came  from 
the  House,  and  were  read  at  our  table, 


410 


ON  THE  LOSS  OF  THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835. 


though  they  caused  a  smile,  they  were 
yet  adopted,  and  the  law  passed,  almost 
with  the  rapidity  of  a  comet,  and  with 
something  like  the  same  length  of  tail. 

Now,  Sir,  not  one  of  these  irregulari 
ties  or  incongruities,  no  part  of  this 
jumbling  together  of  distinct  and  differ 
ent  subjects,  was  in  the  slightest  degree 
occasioned  by  any  thing  done,  or  omit 
ted  to  be  done,  on  the  part  of  the  Sen 
ate.  Their  proceedings  were  all  regu 
lar;  their  decision  was  prompt,  their 
despatch  of  the  public  business  correct 
and  reasonable.  There  was  nothing  of 
disorganization,  nothing  of  procrastina 
tion,  nothing  evincive  of  a  temper  to 
embarrass  or  obstruct  the  public  busi 
ness.  If  the  history  which  I  have  now 
truly  given  shows  that  one  thing  was 
amended  by  another,  which  had  no  sort 
of  connection  with  it;  that  unusual  ex 
pedients  were  resorted  to;  and  that  the 
laws,  instead  of  arrangement  and  sym 
metry,  exhibit  anomaly,  confusion,  and 
the  most  grotesque  associations,  it  is 
nevertheless  true,  that  no  part  of  all 
this  was  made  necessary  by  us.  We 
deviated  from  the  accustomed  modes  of 
legislation  only  when  we  were  suppli 
cated  to  do  so,  in  order  to  supply  bald 
and  glaring  deficiencies  in  measures 
which  were  before  us. 

But  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  come 
to  the  fortification  bill,  the  lost  bill, 
which  not  only  now,  but  on  a  graver 
occasion,  has  been  lamented  like  the 
lost  Pleiad. 

This  bill,  Sir,  came  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  the  Senate  in  the 
usual  way,  and  was  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Finance.  Its  appropriations 
were  not  large.  Indeed,  they  appeared 
to  the  committee  to  be  quite  too  small. 
It  struck  a  majority  of  the  committee  at 
once,  that  there  were  several  fortifica 
tions  on  the  coast,  either  not  provided 
for  at  all,  or  not  adequately  provided 
for,  by  this  bill.  The  whole  amount  of 
its  appropriations  was  four  hundred  or 
four  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  dol 
lars.  It  contained  no  grant  of  three 
millions,  and  if  the  Senate  had  passed  it 
the  very  day  it  came  from  the  House, 
not  only  would  there  have  been  no  ap 


propriation  of  the  three  millions,  but, 
Sir,  none  of  these  other  sums  which  the 
Senate  .did  insert  in  the  bill.  Others 
besides  ourselves  saw  the  deficiencies  of 
this  bill.  We  had  communications  with 
and  from  the  departments,  and  we  in 
serted  in  the  bill  every  thing  which  any 
department  recommended  to  us.  We 
took  care  to  be  sure  that  nothing  else 
was  coming.  And  we  then  reported  the 
bill  to  ther  Senate  with  our  proposed 
amendments.  Among  these  amend 
ments,  there  was  a  sum  of  $75,000  for 
Castle  Island  in  Boston  harbor,  $100,000 
for  defences  in  Maryland,  and  so  forth. 
These  amendments  were  agreed  to  by 
the  Senate,  and  one  or  two  others  added, 
on  the  motion  of  members;  and  the 
bill,  as  thus  amended,  was  returned  to 
the  House. 

And  now,  Sir,  it  becomes  important  to 
ask,  When  was  this  bill,  thus  amended, 
returned  to  the  House  of  Representa 
tives?  Was  it  unduly  detained  here,  so 
that  the  House  was  obliged  afterwards 
to  act  upon  it  suddenly?  This  question 
is  material  to  be  asked,  and  material  to 
be  answered,  too,  and  the  journal  does 
satisfactorily  answer  it;  for  it  appears 
by  the  journal  that  the  bill  was  returned 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
Tuesday,  the  24th  of  February,  one 
whole  week  before  the  close  of  the  session. 
And  from  Tuesday,  the  24th  of  Febru 
ary,  to  Tuesday,  the  3d  day  of  March, 
we  heard  not  one  word  from  this  bill. 
Tuesday,  the  3d  day  of  March,  was,  of 
course,  the  last  day  of  the  session.  We 
assembled  here  at  ten  or  eleven  o'clock 
in  the  morning  of  that  day,  and  sat  until 
three  in  the  afternoon,  and  still  we  were 
not  informed  whether  the  House  had 
finally  passed  the  bill.  As  it  was  an 
important  matter,  and  belonged  to  that 
part  of  the  public  business  which  usually 
receives  particular  attention  from  the 
Committee  on  Finance,  I  bore  the  sub 
ject  in  my  mind,  and  felt  some  solici 
tude  about  it,  seeing  that  the  session 
was  drawing  so  near  to  a  close.  I  took 
it  for  granted,  however,  as  I  had  not 
heard  any  thing  to  the  contrary,  that 
the  amendments  of  the  Senate  would 
not  be  objected  to,  and  that,  when  a 


ON  THE  LOSS   OF   THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL   IN  1835. 


411 


convenient  time  should  arrive  for  taking 
up  the  bill  in  the  House,  it  would  be 
passed  at  once  into  a  law,  and  we  should 
hear  no  more  about  it.  Not  the  slight 
est  intimation  was  given,  either  that  the 
executive  wished  for  any  larger  appro 
priation,  or  that  it  was  intended  in  the 
House  to  insert  such  larger  appropria 
tion.  Not  a  syllable  escaped  from  any 
body,  and  came  to  our  knowledge,  that 
any  further  alteration  whatever  was  in 
tended  in  the  bill. 

At  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of 
the  3d  of  March,  the  Senate  took  its 
recess,  as  is  usual  in  that  period  of  the 
session,  until  five  o'clock.  At  five 
o'clock  we  again  assembled,  and  pro 
ceeded  with  the  business  of  the  Senate 
until  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening;  and 
at  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  not 
before,  the  clerk  of  the  House  appeared 
at  our  door,  and  announced  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  had  disagreed 
to  one  of  the  Senate's  amendments, 
agreed  to  others;  and  to  two  of  those 
amendments,  namely,  the  fourth  and 
fifth,  it  had  agreed,  with  an  amendment 
of  its  own. 

Now,  Sir,  these  fourth  and  fifth 
amendments  of  ours  were,  one,  a  vote 
of  $75,000  for  Castle  Island  in  Boston 
harbor,  and  the  other,  a  vote  of  $100,000 
for  certain  defences  in  Maryland.  And 
what,  Sir,  was  the  addition  which  the 
House  of  Representatives  proposed  to 
make,  by  way  of  "amendment"  to  a 
vote  of  $75,000  for  repairing  the  works 
in  Boston  harbor?  Here,  Sir,  it  is:  — 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  sum 
of  three  millions  of  dollars  be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby,  appropriated,  out  of  any 
money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  ap 
propriated,  to  be  expended,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  under  the  direction  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  military  and 
naval  service,  including  fortifications  and 
ordnance,  and  the  increase  of  the  navy : 
Provided,  such  expenditures  shall  be  ren 
dered  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the 
country  prior  to  the  next  meeting  of  Con 
gress." 

This  proposition,  Sir,  was  thus  unex 
pectedly  and  suddenly  put  to  us,  at 
eight  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  the  last 


day  of  the  session.  Unusual,  unprece 
dented,  extraordinary,  as  it  obviously 
is,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  manner  of  pre 
senting  it  was  still  more  extraordinary. 
The  President  had  asked  for  no  such 
grant  of  money;  no  department  had 
recommended  it;  no  estimate  had  sug 
gested  it ;  no  reason  whatever  was  given 
for  it.  No  emergency  had  happened, 
and  nothing  new  had  occurred;  every 
thing  known  to  the  administration,  at 
that  hour,  respecting  our  foreign  rela 
tions,  had  certainly  been  known  to  it 
for  days  and  weeks. 

With  what  propriety,  then,  could  the 
Senate  be  called  on  to  sanction  a  pro 
ceeding  so  entirely  irregular  and  anom 
alous?  Sir,  I  recollect  the  occurrences 
of  the  moment  very  well,  and  I  remem 
ber  the  impression  which  this  vote  of 
the  House  seemed  to  make  all  round  the 
Senate.  We  had  just  come  out  of  exec 
utive  session;  the  doors  were  but  just 
opened;  and  I  hardly  remember  that 
there  was  a  single  spectator  in  the  hall  or 
the  galleries.  I  had  been  at  the  clerk's 
table,  and  had  not  reached  my  seat, 
when  the  message  was  read.  All  the 
Senators  were  in  the  chamber.  I  heard 
the  message,  certainly  with  great  sur 
prise  and  astonishment;  and  I  immedi 
ately  moved  the  Senate  to  disagree  to 
this  vote  of  the  House.  My  relation  to 
the  subject,  in  consequence  of  my  con 
nection  with  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
made  it  my  duty  to  propose  some  course, 
and  I  had  not  a  moment's  doubt  or 
hesitation  what  that  course  ought  to 
be.  I  took  upon  myself,  then,  Sir,  the 
responsibility  of  moving  that  the  Sen 
ate  should  disagree  to  this  vote,  and  I 
now  acknowledge  that  responsibility.  It 
might  be  presumptuous  to  say  that  I 
took  a  leading  part,  but  I  certainly  took 
an  early  part,  a  decided  part,  and  an 
earnest  part,  in  rejecting  this  broad 
grant  of  three  millions  of  dollars, 
without  limitation  of  purpose  or  speci 
fication  of  object,  called  for  by  no  rec 
ommendation,  founded  on  no  estimate, 
made  necessary  by  no  state  of  things 
which  was  known  to  us.  Certainly, 
Sir,  I  took  a  part  in  its  rejection ;  and  I 
stand  here,  in  my  place  in  the  Senate, 


412 


ON   THE  LOSS  OF  THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835. 


to-day,  ready  to  defend  the  part  so  taken 
by  me;  or,  rather,  Sir,  I  disclaim  all 
defence,  and  all  occasion  of  defence, 
and  I  assert  it  as  meritorious  to  have 
been  among  those  who  arrested,  at  the 
earliest  moment,  this  extraordinary  de 
parture  from  all  settled  usage,  and,  as  I 
think,  from  plain  constitutional  injunc 
tion, —  this  indefinite  voting  of  a  vast 
sum  of  money  to  mere  executive  discre 
tion,  without  limit  assigned,  without 
object  specified,  without  reason  given, 
and  without  the  least  control. 

Sir,  I  am  told,  that,  in  opposing  this 
grant,  I  spoke  with  warmth,  and  I  sup 
pose  I  may  have  done  so.  If  I  did,  it 
was  a  warmth  springing  from  as  honest 
a  conviction  of  duty  as  ever  influenced 
a  public  man.  It  was  spontaneous,  un 
affected,  sincere.  There  had  been  among 
us,  Sir,  no  consultation,  no  concert. 
There  could  have  been  none.  Between 
the  reading  of  the  message  and  my  mo 
tion  to  disagree,  there  was  not  time 
enough  for  any  two  members  of  the 
Senate  to  exchange  five  words  on  the 
subject.  The  proposition  was  sudden 
and  perfectly  unexpected.  I  resisted  it, 
as  irregular,  as  dangerous  in  itself,  and 
dangerous  in  its  precedent;  as  wholly 
unnecessary,  and  as  violating  the  plain 
intention,  if  not  the  express  words,  of 
the  Constitution.  Before  the  Senate, 
then,  I  avowed,  and  before  the  country 
I  now  avow,  my  part  in  this  opposition. 
Whatsoever  is  to  fall  on  those  who  sanc 
tioned  it,  of  that  let  me  have  my  full 
share. 

The  Senate,  Sir,  rejected  this  grant  by 
a  vote  of  TWENTY-NINE  against  nineteen. 
Those  twenty-nine  names  are  on  the 
journal ;  and  whensoever  the  EXPUNGING 
process  may  commence,  or  how  far  so 
ever  it  may  be  carried,  I  pray  it,  in 
mercy,  not  to  erase  mine  from  that  rec 
ord.  I  beseech  it,  in  its  sparing  good 
ness,  to  leave  me  that  proof  of  attach 
ment  to  duty  and  to  principle.  It  may 
draw  around  it,  over  it,  or  through  it, 
black  lines,  or  red  lines,  or  any  lines; 
it  may  mark  it  in  any  way  which  either 
the  most  prostrate  and  fantastical  spirit 
of  man-worship,  or  the  most  ingenious 
and  elaborate  study  of  self -degradation, 


may  devise,  if  only  it  will  leave  it  so 
that  those  who  inherit  my  blood,  or  who 
may  hereafter  care  for  my  reputation, 
shall  be  able  to  behold  it  where  it  now 
stands. 

The  House,  Sir,  insisted  on  this 
amendment.  The  Senate  adhered  to  its 
disagreement;  the  House  asked  a  con 
ference,  to  which  request  the  Senate  im 
mediately  acceded.  The  committee  of 
conference  met,  and  in  a  very  short 
time  came  to  an  agreement.  They 
agreed  to  recommend  to  their  respective 
houses,  as  a  substitute  for  the  vote  pro 
posed  by  the  House,  the  following:  — 

"As  an  additional  appropriation  for 
arming  the  fortifications  of  the  United 
States,  three  hundred  thousand  dollars." 

"As  an  additional  appropriation  for 
the  repairs  and  equipment  of  ships  of 
war  of  the  United  States,  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars." 

I  immediately  reported  this  agreement 
of  the  committee  of  conference  to  the 
Senate;  but,  inasmuch  as  the  bill  was 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the 
Senate  could  not  act  further  on  the  mat 
ter  until  the  House  should  first  have  con 
sidered  the  report  of  the  committee, 
decided  thereon,  and  sent  us  the  bill.  I 
did  not  myself  take  any  note  of  the  par 
ticular  hour  of  this  part  of  the  transac 
tion.  The  honorable  member  from  Vir 
ginia  l  says  he  looked  at  his  watch  at  the 
time,  and  he  knows  that  I  had  come 
from  the  conference,  and  was  in  my  seat, 
at  a  quarter  past  eleven.  I  have  no 
reason  to  think  that  he  is  under  any 
mistake  on  this  particular.  He  says  it 
so  happened  that  he  had  occasion  to  take 
notice  of  the  hour,  and  well  remembers 
it.  It  could  not  well  have  been  later 
than  this,  as  any  one  will  be  satisfied 
who  will  look  at  our  journals,  public 
and  executive,  and  see  what  a  mass  of 
business  was  despatched  after  I  came 
from  the  committee,  and  before  the  ad 
journment  of  the  Senate.  Having  made 
the  report,  Sir,  I  had  no  doubt  that  both 
houses  would  concur  in  the  result  of  the 
conference,  and  looked  every  moment 
for  the  officer  of  the  House  bringing  the 
bill.  He  did  not  come,  however,  and  I 
i  Mr.  Leigh. 


ON   THE   LOSS   OF   THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835. 


413 


pretty  soon  learned  that  there  was  doubt 
whether  the  committee  on  the  part  of 
the  House  would  report  to  the  House  the 
agreement  of  the  conferees.  At  first,  I 
did  not  at  all  credit  this ;  but  was  con 
firmed  by  one  communication  after  an 
other,  until  I  was  obliged  to  think  it 
true.  Seeing  that  the  bill  was  thus  in 
danger  of  being  lost,  and  intending  at 
any  rate  that  no  blame  should  justly 
attach  to  the  Senate,  I  immediately 
moved  the  following  resolution:  — 

"  Resolved,  That  a  message  be  sent  to 
the  honorable  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  respectfully  to  remind  the  House 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  con 
ference  appointed  on  the  disagreeing 
votes  of  the  two  houses  on  the  amend 
ment  of  the  House  to  the  amendment  of 
the  Senate  to  the  bill  respecting  the  for 
tifications  of  the  United  States." 

You  recollect  this  resolution,  Sir,  hav 
ing,  as  I  well  remember,  taken  some 
part  on  the  occasion.1 

This  resolution  was  promptly  passed ; 
the  secretary  carried  it  to  the  House, 
and  delivered  it.  What  was  done  in  the 
House  on  the*  receipt  of  this  message 
now  appears  from  the  printed  journal. 
I  have  no  wish  to  comment  on  the  pro 
ceedings  there  recorded;  all  may  read 
them,  and  each  be  able  to  form  his 
own  opinion.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
the  House  of  Representatives,  having 
then  possession  of  the  bill,  chose  to 
retain  that  possession,  and  never  acted 
on  the  report  of  the  committee  of  con 
ference.  The  bill,  therefore,  was  lost. 
It  was  lost  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives.  It  died  there,  and  there  its  re 
mains  are  to  be  found.  No  opportunity 
was  given  to  the  members  of  the  House 
to  decide  whether  they  would  agree  to 
the  report  of  the  committee  or  not. 
From  a  quarter  past  eleven,  when  the 
report  was  agreed  to,  until  two  or  three 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  the  House  re 
mained  in  session.  If  at  any  time  there 
was  not  a  quorum  of  members  present, 
the  attendance  of  a  quorum,  we  are  to 
presume,  might  have  been  commanded, 
as  there  was  undoubtedly  a  great  major 
ity  of  members  still  in  the  city. 

1  Mr.  -King,  of  Alabama,  was  in  the  chair. 


But,  Sir,  there  is  one  other  transaction 
of  the  evening  which  I  now  feel  bound 
to  state,  because  I  think  it  quite  impor 
tant  on  several  accounts,  that  it  should 
be  known. 

A  nomination  was  pending  before  the 
Senate  for  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  In  the  course  of  the  sitting,  that 
nomination  was  called  up,  and,  on  mo 
tion,  was  indefinitely  postponed.  In 
other  words,  it  was  rejected;  for  an  in 
definite  postponement  is  a  rejection. 
The  office,  of  course,  remained  vacant, 
and  the  nomination  of  another  person  to 
fill  it  became  necessary.  The  President 
of  the  United  States  was  then  in  the 
Capitol,  as  is  usual  on  the  evening  of  the 
last  day  of  the  session,  in  the  chamber 
assigned  to  him,  and  with  the  heads  of 
departments  around  him.  When  nomi 
nations  are  rejected  under  these  circum 
stances,  it  has  been  usual  for  the  Presi 
dent  immediately  to  transmit  a  new 
nomination  to  the  Senate ;  otherwise  the 
office  must  remain  vacant  till  the  next 
session,  as  the  vacancy  in  such  case  has 
not  happened  in  the  recess  of  Congress. 
The  vote  of  the  Senate,  indefinitely  post 
poning  this  nomination,  was  carried  to 
the  President's  room  by  the  secretary  of 
the  Senate.  The  President  told  the  sec 
retary  that  it  was  more  than  an  hour 
past  twelve  o'clock,  and  that  he  could 
receive  no  further  communications  from 
the  Senate,  and  immediately  after,  as  I 
have  understood,  left  the  Capitol.  The 
secretary  brought  back  the  paper  con 
taining  the  certified  copy  of  the  vote  of 
the  Senate,  and  indorsed  •  thereon  the 
substance  of  the  President's  answer,  and 
also  added,  that,  according  to  his  own 
watch,  it  was  quarter  past  one  o'clock. 

There  are  two  views,  Sir,  in  which 
this  occurrence  may  well  deserve  to  be 
noticed.  One  is  as  to  the  connection 
which  it  may  perhaps  have  had  with  the 
loss  of  the  fortification  bill ;  the  other  is 
as  to  its  general  importance,  as  intro 
ducing  a  new  rule,  or  a  new  practice, 
respecting  the  intercourse  between  the 
President  and  the  two  houses  of  Congress 
on  the  last  day  of  the  session'. 

On  the  first  point,  I  shall  only  observe 
that  the  fact  of  the  President's  having 


414 


ON  THE  LOSS   OF  THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN   1835. 


declined  to  receive  this  communication 
from  the  Senate,  and  of  his  having  left 
the  Capitol,  was  immediately  known  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  It  was 
quite  obvious,  that,  if  he  could  not  re 
ceive  a  communication  from  the  Senate, 
neither  could  he  receive  a  bill  from  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  his  signa 
ture.  It  was  equally  obvious,  that,  if, 
under  these  circumstances,  the  House  of 
Representatives  should  agree  to  the  re 
port  of  the  committee  of  conference,  so 
that  the  bill  should  pass,  it  must,  never 
theless,  fail  to  become  a  law  for  want  of 
the  President's  signature;  and  that,  in 
that  case,  the  blame  of  losing  the  bill, 
on  whomsoever  else  it  might  fall,  could 
not  be  laid  upon  the  Senate. 

On  the  more  general  point,  I  must  say, 
Sir,  that  this  decision  of  the  President, 
not  to  hold  communication  with  the 
houses  of  Congress  after  twelve  o'clock 
at  night,  on  the  3d  of  March,  is  quite 
new.  No  such  objection  has  ever  been 
made  before  by  any  President.  No  one 
of  them  has  ever  declined  communicat 
ing  with  either  house  at  any  time  during 
the  continuance  of  its  session  on  that 
day.  All  Presidents  heretofore  have  left 
with  the  houses  themselves  to  fix  their 
hour  of  adjournment,  and  to  bring  their 
session  for  the  day  to  a  close,  whenever 
they  saw  fit. 

It  is  notorious,  in  point  of  fact,  that 
nothing  is  more  common  than  for  both 
houses  to  sit  later  than  twelve  o'clock, 
for  the  purpose  of  completing  measures 
which  are  in  the  last  stages  of  their 
progress.  Amendments  are  proposed 
and  agreed  to,  bills  passed,  enrolled 
bills  signed  by  the  presiding  officers, 
and  other  important  legislative  acts  per 
formed,  often  at  two  or  three  o'clock  in 
the  morning.  All  this  is  very  well 
known  to  gentlemen  who  have  been  for 
any  considerable  time  members  of  Con 
gress.  And  all  Presidents  have  signed 
bills,  and  have  also  made  nominations 
to  the  Senate,  without  objection  as  to 
time,  whenever  bills  have  been  presented 
for  signature,  or  whenever  it  became  ne 
cessary  to  make  nominations  to  the  Sen 
ate,  at  any  time  during  the  session  of  the 
respective  houses  on  that  day. 


And  all  this,  Sir,  I  suppose  to  be  per 
fectly  right,  correct,  and  legal.  There 
is  no  clause  of  the  Constitution,  nor  is 
there  any  law,  which  declares  that  the 
term  of  office  of  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  shall  expire  at  twelve 
o'clock  at  night  on  the  3d  of  March. 
They  are  to  hold  for  two  years,  but  the 
precise  hour  for  the  commencement  of 
that  term  of  two  years  is  nowhere  fixed 
by  constitutional  or  legal  provision.  It 
has  been  established  by  usage  and  by 
inference,  and  very  properly  established, 
that,  since  the  first  Congress  commenced 
its  existence  on  the  first  Wednesday  in 
March,  1789,  which  happened  to  be  the 
fourth  day  of  the  month,  therefore  the  4th 
of  March  is  the  day  of  the  commence 
ment  of  each  successive  term;  but  no 
hour  is  fixed  by  law  or  practice.  The 
true  rule  is,  as  I  think,  most  undoubt 
edly,  that  the  session  held  on  the  last 
day  constitutes  the  last  day  for  all  legis 
lative  and  legal  purposes.  While  the 
session  begun  on  that  day  continues,  the 
day  itself  continues,  according  to  the 
established  practice  both  of  legislative 
and  judicial  bodies.  This  could  not 
well  be  otherwise.  If  the  precise  mo 
ment  of  actual  time  were  to  settle  such 
a  matter,  it  would  be  material  to  ask, 
Who  shall  settle  the  time?  Shall  it  be 
done  by  public  authority,  or  shall  every 
man  observe  the  tick  of  his  own  watch? 
If  absolute  time  is  to  furnish  a  precise 
rule,  the  excess  of  a  minute,  it  is  obvious, 
would  be  as  fatal  as  the  excess  of  an 
hour.  Sir,  no  bodies,  judicial  or  legis 
lative,  have  ever  been  so  hypercritical, 
so  astu.te  to  no  purpose,  so  much  more 
nice  than  wise,  as  to  govern  themselves 
by  any  such  ideas.  The  session  for  the 
day,  at  whatever  hour  it  commences,  or 
at  whatever  hour  it  breaks  up,  is  the 
legislative  day.  Every  thing  has  refer 
ence  to  the  commencement  of  that  diur 
nal  session.  For  instance,  this  is  the 
14th  day  of  January ;  we  assembled  here 
to-day  at  twelve  o'clock ;  our  journal  is 
dated  January  14th,  and  if  we  should 
remain  here  until  five  o'clock  to-morrow 
morning  (and  the  Senate  has  sometimes 
sat  so  late),  our  proceedings  would  still 
bear  date  of  the  14th  of  January ;  they 


ON   THE   LOSS  OF  THE   FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835. 


415 


would  be  so  stated  upon  the  journal, 
and  the  journal  is  a  record,  and  is  a 
conclusive  record,  so  far  as  respects  the 
proceedings  of  the  body. 

It  is  so  in  judicial  proceedings.  If  a 
man  were  on  trial  for  his  life,  at  a  late 
hour  on  the  last  day  allowed  by  law  for 
the  holding  of  the  court,  and  the  jury 
should  acquit  him,  but  happened  to  re 
main  so  long  in  deliberation  that  they 
did  not  bring  in  their  verdict  till  after 
twelve  o'clock,  is  it  all  to  be  held  for 
naught,  and  the  man  to  be  tried  over 
again?  Are  all  verdicts,  judgments,  and 
orders  of  courts  null  and  void,  if  made 
after  midnight  on  the  day  which  the  law 
prescribes  as  the  last  day?  It  would  be 
easy  to  show  by  authority,  if  authority 
could  be  wanted  for  a  thing  the  reason 
of  which  is  so  clear,  that  the  day  lasts 
while  the  daily  session  lasts.  When  the 
court  or  the  legislative  body  adjourns 
for  that  day,  the  day  is  over,  and  not 
before. 

I  am  told,  indeed,  Sir,  that  it  is  true 
that,  on  this  same  3d  day  of  March  last, 
not  only  were  other  things  transacted, 
but  that  the  bill  for  the  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  Road,  an  important  and 
much  litigated  measure,  actually  re 
ceived  the  signature  of  our  presiding 
officer  after  twelve  o'clock,  was  then 
sent  to  the  President,  and  signed  by 
him.  I  do  not  affirm  this,  because  I 
took  no  notice  of  the  time,  or  do  not 
remember  it  if  I  did ;  but  I  have  heard 
the  matter  so  stated. 

I  see  no  reason,  Sir,  for  the  introduc 
tion  of  this  new  practice ;  no  principle 
on  which  it  can  be  justified,  no  necessity 
for  it,  no  propriety  in  it.  As  yet,  it 
has  been  applied  only  to  the  President's 
intercourse  with  the  Senate.  Certainly 
it  is  equally  applicable  to  his  inter 
course  with  both  houses  in  legislative 
matters;  and  if  it  is  to  prevail  here 
after,  it  is  of  much  importance  that  it 
should  be  known. 

The  President  of  the  United  States, 
Sir,  has  alluded  to  this  loss  of  the  forti 
fication  bill  in  his  message  at  the  open 
ing  of  the  session,  and  he  has  alluded, 
also,  in  the  same  message,  to  the  rejec 
tion  of  the  vote  of  the  three  millions. 


On  the  first  point,  that  is,  the  loss  of 
the  whole  bill,  and  the  causes  of  that 
loss,  this  is  his  language:  "Much  loss 
and  inconvenience  have  been  experi 
enced  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of 
the  bill  containing  the  ordinary  appro 
priations  for  fortifications,  which  passed 
one  branch  of  the  national  legislature 
at  the  last  session,  but  was  lost  in  the 
other." 

If  the  President  intended  to  say  that 
the  bill,  having  originated  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  passed  the  Senate, 
and  was  yet  afterwards  lost  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  he  was  entirely  cor 
rect.  But  he  has  been  wholly  misin 
formed,  if  he  intended  to  state  that  the 
bill,  having  passed  the  House,  was  lost  in 
the  Senate.  As  I  have  already  stated, 
the  bill  was  lost  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  Ifc  drew  its  last  breath  there. 
That  House  never  let  go  its  hold  on  it 
after  the  report  of  the  committee  of  con 
ference.  But  it  held  it,  it  retained  it, 
and  of  course  it  died  in  its  possession 
when  the  House  adjourned.  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  the  President  should  have 
been  misinformed  in  a  matter  of  this 
kind,  when  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
journals  of  the  two  houses  would  have 
exhibited  the  correct  history  of  the  trans 
action. 

I  recur  again,  Mr.  President,  to  the 
proposed  grant  of  the  three  millions,  for 
the  purpose  of  stating  somewhat  more 
distinctly  the  true  grounds  of  objection 
to  that  grant. 

These  grounds  of  objection  were  two ; 
the  first  was,  that  no  such  appropriation 
had  been  recommended  by  the  President, 
or  any  of  the  departments.  And  what 
made  this  ground  the  stronger  was,  that 
the  proposed  grant  was  defended,  so  far 
as  it  was  defended  at  all,  upon  an  alleged 
necessity,  growing  out  of  our  foreign 
relations.  The  foreign  relations  of  the 
country  are  intrusted  by  the  Constitu 
tion  to  the  lead  and  management  of  the 
executive  government.  The  President 
not  only  is  supposed  to  be,  but  usually 
is,  much  better  informed  on  these  inter 
esting  subjects  than  the  houses  of  Con 
gress.  If  there  be  danger  of  a  rupture 
with  a  foreign  state,  he  sees  it  soonest. 


416         ON  THE  LOSS   OF   THE   FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN   1835. 


All  our  ministers  and  agents  abroad  are 
but  so  many  eyes,  and  ears,  and  organs 
to  communicate  to  him  whatsoever  oc 
curs  in  foreign  places,  and  to  keep  him 
well  advised  of  all  which  may  concern 
the  interests  of  the  United  States. 
There  is  an  especial  propriety,  there 
fore,  that,  in  this  branch  of  the  public 
service,  Congress  should  always  be  able 
to  avail  itself  of  the  distinct  opinions 
and  recommendations  of  the  President. 
The  two  houses,  and  especially  the 
House  of  Representatives,  are  the  nat 
ural  guardians  of  the  people's  money. 
They  are  to  keep  it  sacred,  and  to  use  it 
discreetly.  They  are  not  at  liberty  to 
spend  it  where  it  is  not  needed,  nor  to 
offer  it  for  any  purpose  till  a  reasonable 
occasion  for  the  expenditure  be  shown. 
Now,  in  this  case,  I  repeat  again,  the 
President  had  sent  us  no  recommenda 
tion  for  any  such  appropriation ;  no  de 
partment  had  recommended  it;  no  esti 
mate  had  contained  it;  in  the  whole" 
history  of  the  session,  from  the  morning 
of  the  first  day,  down  to  eight  o'clock 
in  the  evening  of  the  last  day,  not  one 
syllable  had  been  said  to  us,  not  one 
hint  suggested,  showing  that  the  Presi 
dent  deemed  any  such  measure  either 
necessary  or  proper.  I  state  this  strong 
ly,  Sir,  but  I  state  it  truly.  I  state  the 
matter  as  it  is;  and  I  wish  to  draw  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  coun 
try  strongly  to  this  part  of  the  case.  I 
say  again,  therefore,  that,  when  this 
vote  for  the  three  millions  was  proposed 
to  the  Senate,  there  was  nothing  before 
us  showing  that  the  President  recom 
mended  any  such  appropriation.  You 
very  well  know,  Sir,  that  this  objection 
was  stated  as  soon  as  the  message  from 
the  House  was  read.  We  all  well  re 
member  that  this  was  the  very  point 
put  forth  by  the  honorable  member  from 
Tennessee,1  as  being,  if  I  may  say  so, 
the  but-end  of  his  argument  in  opposi 
tion  to  the  vote.  lie  said,  very  signifi 
cantly,  and  very  forcibly,  "It  is  not 
asked  for  by  those,  who  best  know  what 
the  public  service  requires;  how,  then, 
are  we  to  presume  that  it  is  needed?  " 
This  question,  Sir,  was  not  answered 

i  Mr.  White. 


then ;  it  never  has  been  answered  since ; 
it  never  can  be  answered  satisfacto 
rily-  • 

But  let  me  here  again,  Sir,  recur  to 
the  message  of  the  President.  Speak 
ing  of  the  loss  of  the  bill,  he  uses  these 
words:  "  This  failure  was  the  more  re 
gretted,  not  only  because  it  necessarily 
interrupted  and  delayed  the  progress  of 
a  system  of  national  defence  projected 
immediately  after  the  last  war,  and 
since  steadily  pursued,  but  also  because 
it  contained  a  contingent  appropriation, 
inserted  in  accordance  with  the  views  of 
the  executive,  in  aid  of  this  important 
object,  and  other  branches  of  the  na 
tional  defence,  some  portions  of  which 
might  have  been  most  usefully  applied 
during  the  past  season." 

Taking  these  words  of  the  message, 
Sir,  and  connecting  them  with  the  fact 
that  the  President  had  made  no  recom 
mendation  to  Congress  of  any  such  ap 
propriation,  it  strikes  me  that  they  fur 
nish  matter  for  very  grave  reflection. 
The  President  says  that  this  proposed 
appropriation  was  "  in  accordance  with 
the  views  of  the  executive";  that  it 
was  "  in  aid  of  an  important  object"; 
and  that  "some  portions  of  it  might 
have  been  most  usefully  applied  during 
the  past  season." 

And  now,  Sir,  I  ask,  if  this  be  so, 
why  was  not  this  appropriation  recom 
mended  to  Congress  by  the  President? 
I  ask  this  question  in  the  name  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States;  I 
stand  on  its  own  clear  authority  in  ask 
ing  it;  and  I  invite  all  those  who  re 
member  its  injunctions,  and  who  mean 
to  respect  them,  to  consider  well  how 
the  question  is  to  be  answered. 

Sir,  the  Constitution  is  not  yet  an  en 
tire  dead  letter.  There  is  yet  some  form 
of  observance  of  its  requirements;  and 
even  while  any  degree  of  formal  respect 
is  paid  to  it,  I  must  be  permitted  to  con 
tinue  the  question,  Why  was  not  this 
appropriation  recommended?  It  was  in 
accordance  with  the  President's  views; 
it  was  for  an  important  object;  it  might 
have  been  usefully  expended.  The 
President  being  of  opinion,  therefore, 
that  the  appropriation  was  necessary 


ON   THE   LOSS   OF   THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN   1835. 


417 


and  proper,  how  is  it  that  it  was  not  rec 
ommended  to  Congress?  For,  Sir,  we 
all  know  the  plain  and  direct  words  in 
which  the  very  first  duty  of  the  Presi 
dent  is  imposed  by  the  Constitution. 
Here  they  are :  — 

"  He  shall,  from  time  to  time,  give 
to  the  Congress  information  of  the  state 
of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their 
consideration  such  measures  as  he  shall 
judge  necessary  and  expedient." 

After  enumerating  the  powers  of  the 
President,  this  is  the  first,  the  very  first 
duty  which  the  Constitution  gravely  en 
joins  upon  him.  And  now,  Sir,  in  no 
language  of  taunt  or  reproach,  in  no 
language  of  party  attack,  in  terms  of 
no  asperity  or  exaggeration,  but  called 
upon  by  the  necessity  of  defending  my 
own  vote  upon  the  subject,  as  a  public 
man,  as  a  member  of  Congress  here  in 
my  place,  and  as  a  citizen  who  feels  as 
warm  an  attachment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  country  as  any  other  can,  I  de 
mand  of  any  who  may  choose  to  give  it 
an  answer  to  this  question:  WHY  WAS 

NOT  THIS  MEASURE,  WHICH  THE  PRESI 
DENT  DECLARES  THAT  HE  THOUGHT 
NECESSARY  AND  EXPEDIENT,  RECOM 
MENDED  TO  CONGRESS?  And  why  am 
I,  and  why  are  other  members  of  Con 
gress,  whose  path  of  duty  the  Constitu 
tion  says  shall  be  enlightened  by  the 
President's  opinions  and  communica 
tions,  to  be  charged  with  want  of  pa 
triotism  and  want  of  fidelity  to  the 
country,  because  we  refused  an  appro 
priation  which  the  President,  though  it 
was  in  accordance  with  his  views,  and 
though  he  believed  it  important,  would 
not,  and  did  not,  recommend  to  us? 
When  these  questions  are  answered  to 
the  satisfaction  of  intelligent  and  im 
partial  men,  then,  and  not  till  then,  let 
reproach,  let  censure,  let  suspicion  of 
any  kind,  rest  on  the  twenty-nine  names 
which  stand  opposed  to  this  appropria 
tion. 

How,  Sir,  were  we  to  know  that  this 
appropriation  "  was  in  accordance  with 
the  views  of  the  executive"?  He  had 
not  so  told  us,  formally  or  informally. 
He  had  not  only  not  recommended  it  to 
Congress,  or  either  house  of  Congress, 


but  nobody  on  this  floor  had  undertaken 
to  speak  in  his  behalf.  Xo  man  got  up 
to  say,  "The  President  desires  it;  he 
thinks  it  necessary,  expedient,  and 
proper."  But,  Sir,  if  any  gentleman 
had  risen  to  say  this,  it  would  not  have 
answered  the  requisition  of  the  Consti 
tution.  Not  at  all.  It  is  not  by  a  hint, 
an  intimation,  the  suggestion  of  a 
friend,  that  the  executive  duty  in  this 
respect  is  to  be  fulfilled.  By  no  means. 
The  President  is  to  make  a  recommen 
dation, —  a  public  recommendation,  an 
official  recommendation,  a  responsible 
recommendation,  not  to  one  house,  but 
to  both  houses ;  it  is  to  be  a  recommen 
dation  to  Congress.  If,  on  receiving 
such  recommendation,  Congress  fail  to 
pay  it  proper  respect,  the  fault  is  theirs. 
If,  deeming  the  measure  necessary  and 
expedient,  the  President  fails  to  recom 
mend  it,  the  fault  is  his,  clearly,  dis 
tinctly,  and  exclusively  his.  This,  Sir, 
is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
or  else  I  do  not  understand  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States. 

Does  not  every  man  see  how  entirely 
unconstitutional  it  is  that  the  President 
should  communicate  his  opinions  or 
wishes  to  Congress,  on  such  grave  and 
important  subjects,  otherwise  than  by  a 
direct  and  responsible  recommendation, 
a  public  and  open  recommendation, 
equally  addressed  and  equally  known 
to  all  whose  duty  calls  upon  them  to  act 
on  the  subject?  What  would  be  the 
state  of  things,  if  he  might  communi 
cate  his  wishes  or  opinions  privately  to 
members  of  one  house,  and  make  no 
such  communication  to  the  other? 
Would  not  the  two  houses  be  neces 
sarily  put  in  immediate  collision? 
Would  they  stand  on  equal  footing? 
Would  they  have  equal  information? 
What  could  ensue  from  such  a  manner 
of  conducting  the  public  business,  but 
quarrel,  confusion,  and  conflict?  A 
member  rises  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  and  moves  a  very  large  ap 
propriation  of  money  for  military  pur 
poses.  If  he  says  he  does  it  upon  ex 
ecutive  recommendation,  where  is  his 
voucher?  The  President  is  not  like  the 
British  king,  whose  ministers  and  sec- 


418         ON  THE   LOSS   OF   THE   FORTIFICATION  BILL   IN  1835. 


retaries  are  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  who  are  authorized,  in  certain  cases, 
to  express  the  opinions  and  wishes  of 
their  sovereign.  We  have  no  king's 
servants;  at  least,  we  have  none  known 
to  the  Constitution.  Congress  can  know 
the  opinions  of  the  President  only  as  he 
officially  communicates  them.  It  would 
be  a  curious  inquiry  in  either  house, 
when  a  large  appropriation  is  moved, 
if  it  were  necessary  to  ask  whether  the 
mover  represented  the  President,  spoke 
his  sentiments,  or,  in  other  words, 
whether  what  he  proposed  were  "  in 
accordance  with  the  views  of  the  execu 
tive."  How  could  that  be  judged  of? 
By  the  party  he  belongs  to?  Party  is 
not  quite  strongly  enough  marked  for 
that.  By  the  airs  he  gives  himself? 
Many  might  assume  airs,  if  thereby 
they  could  give  themselves  such  impor 
tance  as  to  be  esteemed  authentic  exposi 
tors  of  the  executive  will.  Or  is  this 
will  to  be  circulated  in  whispers;  made 
known  to  the  meetings  of  party  men; 
intimated  through  the  press;  or  com 
municated  in  any  other  form,  which 
still  leaves  the  executive  completely 
irresponsible;  so  that,  while  executive 
purposes  or  wishes  pervade  the  ranks  of 
party  friends,  influence  their  conduct, 
and  unite  their  efforts,  the  open,  di 
rect,  and  constitutional  responsibility  is 
wholly  avoided?  Sir,  this  is  not  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  nor 
can  it  be  consistent  with  any  constitu 
tion  which  professes  to  maintain  sepa 
rate  departments  in  the  government. 

Here,  then,  Sir,  is  abundant  ground, 
in  my  judgment,  for  the  vote  of  the 
Senate,  and  here  I  might  rest  it.  But 
there  is  also  another  ground.  The  Con 
stitution  declares  that  no  money  shall 
be  drawn  from  the  treasury  but  in  conse 
quence  of  appropriations  made  by  law. 
What  is  meant  by  "appropriations"? 
Does  not  this  language  mean  that  par 
ticular  sums  shall  be  assigned  by  law  to 
particular  objects?  How  far  this  point 
ing  out  and  fixing  the  particular  objects 
shall  be  carried,  is  a  question  that  can 
not  be  settled  by  any  precise  rule.  But 
"  specific  appropriation,"  that  is  to  say, 
the  designation  of  every  object  for  which 


money  is  voted,  as  far  as  such  designa 
tion  is  practicable,  has  been  thought  to 
be  a  mpst  important  republican  princi 
ple.  In  times  past,  popular  parties  have 
claimed  great  merit  from  professing  to 
carry  this  doctrine  much  farther,  and  to 
adhere  to  it  much  more  strictly,  than 
their  adversaries.  Mr.  Jefferson,  espe 
cially,  was  a  great  advocate  for  it,  and 
held  it  to  be  indispensable  to  a  safe  and 
economical  administration  and  disburse 
ment  of  the  public  revenues. 

But  what  have  the  friends  and  admir 
ers  of  Mr.  Jefferson  to  say  to  this  appro 
priation  ?  Where  do  they  find,  in  this 
proposed  grant  of  three  millions,  a  con 
stitutional  designation  of  object,  and  a 
particular  and  specific  application  of 
money?  Have  they  forgotten,  all  for 
gotten,  and  wholly  abandoned  even  all 
pretence  for  specific  appropriation?  If 
not,  how  could  they  sanction  such  a  vote 
as  this?  Let  me  recall  its  terms.  They 
are,  that  "  the  sum  of  three  millions  of 
dollars  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  ap 
propriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to 
be  expended,  in  whole  or  in  part,  under 
the  direction  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  military  and  naval 
service,  including  fortifications  and  ord 
nance,  and  the  increase  of  the  navy; 
provided  such  expenditures  shall  be  ren 
dered  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the 
country  prior  to  the  next  meeting  of 
Congress." 

In  the  first  place  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  whether  the  money  shall  be  used 
at  all,  or  not,  is  made  to  depend  on  the 
discretion  of  the  President.  This  is 
sufficiently  liberal.  It  carries  confi 
dence  far  enough.  But  if  there  had 
been  no  other  objections,  if  the  objects 
of  the  appropriation  had  been  suffi 
ciently  described,  so  that  the  President, 
if  he  expended  the  money  at  all,  must 
expend  it  for  purposes  authorized  by 
the  legislature,  and  nothing  had  been 
left  to  his  discretion  but  the  question 
whether  an  emergency  had  arisen  in 
which  the  authority  ought  to  be  exer 
cised,  I  might  not  have  felt  bound  to 
reject  the  vote.  There  are  some  prece 
dents  which  might  favor  such  a  contin- 


ON   THE   LOSS   OF  THE   FORTIFICATION   BILL  IN   1835. 


419 


gent  provision,  though  the  practice  is 
dangerous,  and  ought  not  to  be  fol 
lowed  except  in  cases  of  clear  necessity. 

But  the  insurmountable  objection  to 
the  proposed  grant  was,  that  it  specified 
no  objects.  It  was  as  general  as  lan 
guage  could  make  it.  It  embraced 
every  expenditure  that  could  be  called 
either  military  or  naval.  It  was  to  in 
clude  "fortifications,  ordnance,  and  the 
increase  of  the  navy,"  but  it  was  not 
confined  to  these.  It  embraced  the 
whole  general  subject  of  military  ser 
vice.  Under  the  authority  of  such  a 
law,  the  President  might  repair  ships, 
build  ships,  buy  ships,  enlist  seamen, 
and  do  any  thing  and  every  thing  else 
touching  the  naval  service,  without  re 
straint  or  control. 

He  might  repair  such  fortifications  as 
he  saw  fit,  and  neglect  the  rest;  arm 
such  as  he  saw  fit,  and  neglect  the  arm 
ing  of  others;  or  build  new  fortifica 
tions  wherever  he  chose.  But  these 
unlimited  powers  over  the  fortifications 
and  the  navy  constitute  by  no  means 
the  most  dangerous  part  of  the  proposed 
authority;  because,  under  that  author 
ity,  his  power  to  raise  and  employ 
land  forces  would  be  equally  abso 
lute  and  uncontrolled.  He  might  levy 
troops,  embody  a  new  army,  call  out 
the  militia  in  numbers  to  suit  his  own 
discretion,  and  employ  them  as  he  saw 
fit. 

Now,  Sir,  does  our  legislation,  under 
the  Constitution,  furnish  any  precedent 
for  all  this? 

We  make  appropriations  for  the 
army,  and  we  understand  what  we 
are  doing,  because  it  is  "the  army," 
that  is  to  say,  the  army  established 
by  law.  We  make  appropriations  for 
the  navy;  they,  too,  are  for  "the 
navy,"  as  provided  for  and  established 
by  law.  We  make  appropriations  for 
fortifications,  but  we  say 'what  fortifi 
cations,  and  we  assign  to  each  its  in 
tended  amount  of  the  whole  sum. 
This  is  the  usual  course  of  Congress  on 
such  subjects ;  and  why  should  it  be  de 
parted  froni?  Are  we  ready  to  say  that 
the  power  of  fixing  the  places  for  new 
fortifications,  and  the  sum  allotted  to 


each;  the  power  of  ordering  new  ships 
to  be  built,  and  fixing  the  number  of 
such  new  ships;  the  power  of  laying 
out  money  to  raise  men  for  the  army ; 
in  short,  every  power,  great  or  small, 
respecting  the  military  and  naval  ser 
vice,  shall  be  vested  in  the  President, 
without  specification  of  object  or  pur 
pose,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  ex 
ercise  of  all  judgment  on  the  part  of 
Congress  ?  For  one,  I  am  not  pre 
pared.  The  honorable  member  from 
Ohio,  near  me,  has  said,  that  if  the 
enemy  had  been  on  our  shores  he  would 
not  have  agreed  to  this  vote.  And  I 
say,  if  the  proposition  were  now  before 
us,  and  the  guns  of  the  enemy  were 
pointed  against  the  walls  of  the  Capitol, 
I  would  not  agree  to  it. 

The  people  of  this  country  have  an 
interest,  a  property,  an  inheritance,  in 
this  INSTRUMENT,  against  the  value  of 
which  forty  capitols  do  not  weigh  the 
twentieth  part  of  one  poor  scruple. 
There  can  never  be  any  necessity  for 
such  proceedings,  but  a  feigned  and 
false  necessity;  a  mere  idle  and  hollow 
pretence  of  necessity;  least  of  all  can  it 
be  said  that  any  such  necessity  actually 
existed  on  the  3d  of  March.  There 
was  no  enemy  on  our  shores ;  there  were 
no  guns  pointed  against  the  Capitol ;  we 
were  in  no  war,  nor  was  there  a  rea 
sonable  probability  that  we  should  have 
war,  unless  we  made  it  ourselves. 

But  whatever  was  the  state  of  our 
foreign  relations,  is  it  not  preposterous 
to  say,  that  it  was  necessary  for  Con 
gress  to  adopt  this  measure,  and  yet  not 
necessary  for  the  President  to  recom 
mend  it?  Why  should  we  thus  run  in 
advance  of  all  our  own  duties,  and  leave 
the  President  completely  shielded  from 
his  just  responsibility?  Why  should 
there  be  nothing  but  trust  and  confi 
dence  on  our  side,  and  nothing  but  dis 
cretion  and  power  on  his? 

Sir,  if  there  be  any  philosophy  in  his 
tory,  if  human  blood  still  runs  in  hu 
man  veins,  if  man  still  conforms  to  the 
identity  of  his  nature,  the  institutions 
which  secure  constitutional  liberty  can 
never  stand  long  against  this  excessive 
personal  confidence,  against  this  devo- 


420 


ON   THE   LOSS  OF  THE   FORTIFICATION   BILL   IN   1835. 


tion  to  men,  in  utter  disregard  both  of 
principle  and  experience,  which  seem  to 
me  to  be  strongly  characteristic  of  our 
times.  This  vote  came  to  us,  Sir,  from 
the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature; 
and  that  such  a  vote  should  come  from 
such  a  branch  of  the  legislature  was 
amongst  the  circumstances  which  ex 
cited  in  me  the  greatest  surprise  and  the 
deepest  concern.  Certainly,  Sir,  cer 
tainly  I  was  not,  on  that  account,  the 
more  inclined  to  concur.  It  was  no 
argument  with  me,  that  others  seemed 
to  be  rushing,  with  such  heedless,  head 
long  trust,  such  impetuosity  of  confi 
dence,  into  the  arms  of  executive 
power.  I  held  back  the  more  strongly, 
and  would  hold  back  the  longer.  I  see, 
or  I  think  I  see, — it  is  either  a  true 
vision  of  the  future,  revealed  by  the  his 
tory  of  the  past,  or,  if  it  be  an  illusion, 
it  is  an  illusion  which  appears  to  me  in 
all  the  brightness  and  sunlight  of  broad 
noon,  —  that  it  is  in  this  career  of  per 
sonal  confidence,  along  this  beaten 
track  of  man-worship,  marked  at  every 
stage  by  the  fragments  of  other  free 
governments,  that  our  own  system  is 
making1  progress  to  its  close.  A  per 
sonal  popularity,  honorably  earned  at 
first  by  military  achievements,  and  sus 
tained  now  by  party,  by  patronage,  and 
by  enthusiasm  which  looks  for  no  ill, 
because  it  means  no  ill  itself,  seems  to 
render  men  willing  to  gratify  power, 
even  before  its  demands  are  made,  and 
to  surfeit  executive  discretion,  even  in 
anticipation  of  its  own  appetite. 

If,  Sir,  on  the  3d  of  March  last,  it 
had  been  the  purpose  of  both  houses  of 
Congress  to  create  a  military  dictator, 
what  formula  had  been  better  suited  to 
their  purpose  than  this  vote  of  the 
House?  It  is  true,  we  might  have 
given  more  money,  if  we  had  had  it  to 
give.  We  might  have  emptied  the  treas 
ury;  but  as  to  the  form  of  the  gift,  we 
could  not  have  bettered  it.  Rome  had 
no  better  models.  When  we  give  our 
money  for  any  military  purpose  whatever, 
what  remains  to  be  done?  If  we  leave 
it  with  one  man  to  decide,  not  only 
whether  the  military  means  of  the 
country  shall  be  used  at  all,  but  how 


they  shall  be  used,  and  to  what  extent 
they  shall  be  employed,  what  remains 
either  f»r  Congress  or  the  people  but  to 
sit  still  and  see  how  this  dictatorial 
power  will  be  exercised  ?  On  the  3d  of 
March,  Sir,  I  had  not  forgotten,  it  was 
impossible  that  I  should  have  forgotten, 
the  recommendation  in  the  message  at 
the  opening  of  that  session,  that  power 
should  be  vested  in  the  President  to 
issue  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal 
against  France,  at  his  discretion,  in 
the  recess  of  Congress.  Happily,  this 
power  was  not  granted ;  but  suppose  it 
had  been,  what  would  then  have  been 
the  true  condition  of  this  government? 
Why,  Sir,  this  condition  is  very  shortly 
described.  The  whole  war  power  would 
have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Presi 
dent;  for  no  man  can  doubt  a  moment 
that  reprisals  would  bring  on  immediate 
war;  and  the  treasury,  to  the  amount 
of  this  rote,  in  addition  to  all  ordinary 
appropriations,  would  have  been  at  his 
absolute  disposal  also.  And  all  this  in 
a  time  of  peace.  I  beseech  all  true 
lovers  of  constitutional  liberty  to  con 
template  this  state  of  things,  and  tell 
me  whether  such  be  a  truly  republi 
can  administration  of  this  government. 
Whether  particular  consequences  had 
ensued  or  not,  is  such  an  accumulation 
of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  executive 
according  to  the  spirit  of  our  system? 
Is  it  either  wise  or  safe?  Has  it  any 
warrant  in  the  practice  of  former  times  ? 
Or  are  gentlemen  ready  to  establish  the 
practice,  as  an  example  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  are  to  come  after  us? 

But,  Sir,  if  the  power  to  make  re 
prisals,  and  this  money  from  the  treas 
ury,  had  both  been  granted,  is  there 
not  great  reason  to  believe  that  we 
should  have  been  now  actually  at  war? 
I  think  there  is  great  reason  to  believe 
this.  It  will  be  said,  I  know,  that  if 
we  had  armed  the  President  with  this 
power  of  war,  and  supplied  him  with 
this  grant  of  money,  France  would  have 
taken  it  for  such  a  proof  of  spirit  on  our 
part,  that  she  would  have  paid  the  in 
demnity  without  further  delay.  This  is 
the  old  story,  and  the  old  plea.  It  is  the 
excuse  of  every  one  who  desires  more 


ON  THE   LOSS   OF   THE  FORTIFICATION  BILL  IN  1835.         421 


power  than  the  Constitution  or  the  laws 
give  him,  that  if  he  had  more  power  he 
could  do  more  good.  Power  is  always 
claimed  for  the  good  of  the  people ;  and 
dictators  are  always  made,  when  made 
at  all,  for  the  good  of  the  people.  For 
my  part,  Sir,  I  was  content,  and  am 
content,  to  show  France  that  we  are 
prepared  to  maintain  our  just  rights 
against  her  by  the  exertion  of  our 
power,  when  need  be,  according  to  the 
forms  of  our  own  Constitution;  that,  if 
we  make  war,  we  will  make  it  constitu 
tionally  ;  and  that  we  will  trust  all  our  in 
terests,  both  in  peace  and  war,  to  what 
the  intelligence  and  the  strength  of  the 
country  may  do  for  them,  without  break 
ing  down  or  endangering  the  fabric  of 
our  free  institutions. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  the  misfortune  of 
the  Senate  to  have  differed  with  the  ex 
ecutive  on  many  great  questions  during 
the  last  four  or  five  years.  I  have  re 
gretted  this  state  of  things  deeply,  both 
on  personal  and  on  public  accounts; 
but  it  has  been  unavoidable.  It  is  no 
pleasant  employment,  it  is  no  holiday 
business,  to  maintain  opposition  against 
pow:er  and  against  majorities,  and  to 
contend  for  stern  and  sturdy  principle, 
against  personal  popularity,  against  a 
rushing  and  overwhelming  confidence, 
that,  by  wave  upon  wave  and  cataract 


after  cataract,  seems  to  be  bearing 
away  and  destroying  whatsoever  would 
withstand  it.  How  much  longer  we 
may  be  able  to  support  this  opposition 
in  any  degree,  or  whether  we  can  possi 
bly  hold  out  till  the  public  intelligence 
and  the  public  patriotism  shall  be 
awakened  to  a  due  sense  of  the  public 
danger,  it  is  not  for  me  to  foretell.  I 
shall  not  despair  to  the  last,  if,  in  the 
mean  time,  we  are  true  to  our  own 
principles.  If  there  be  a  steadfast  ad 
herence  to  these  principles,  both  here 
and  elsewhere,  if,  one  and  all,  they 
continue  the  rule  of  our  conduct  in  the 
Senate,  and  the  rallying-point  of  those 
who  think  with  us  and  support  us  out 
of  the  Senate,  I  am  content  to  hope  on 
and  to  struggle  on.  While  it  remains 
a  contest  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Constitution,  for  the  security  of  public 
liberty,  for  the  ascendency  of  principles 
over  men,  I  am  willing  to  bear  my  part 
of  it.  If  we  can  maintain  the  Constitu 
tion,  if  we  can  preserve  this  security 
for  liberty,  if  we  can  thus  give  to  true 
principle  its  just  superiority  over  party, 
over  persons,  over  names,  our  labors 
will  be  richly  rewarded.  If  we  fail  in 
all  this,  they  are  already  among  the 
living  who  will  write  the  history  of  this 
government,  from  its  commencement  to 
its  close. 


RECEPTION   AT  NEW   YOKK. 

A    SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT    NIBLO'S    SALOON,  IN    NEW    YORK,    ON    THE   15TH 

OF   MARCH,    1837. 


MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  FELLOW-CITI 
ZENS  :  —  It  would  be  idle  in  me  to  af 
fect  to  be  indifferent  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  I  have  now  the  honor  of 
addressing  you. 

I  find  myself  in  the  commercial  me 
tropolis  of  the  continent,  in  the  midst 
of  a  vast  assembly  of  intelligent  men, 
drawn  from  all  the  classes,  professions, 
and  pursuits  of  life. 

And  you  have  been  pleased,  Gentle 
men,  to  meet  me,  in  this  imposing  man 
ner,  arid  to  offer  me  a  warm  and  cordial 
welcome  to  your  city.  I  thank  you.  I 
feel  the  full  force  and  importance  of  this 
manifestation  of  your  regard.  In  the 
highly-flattering  resolutions  which  in 
vited  me  here,  in  the  respectability  of 
this  vast  multitude  of  my  fellow-citi 
zens,  and  in  the  approbation  and  hearty 
good-will  which  you  have  here  mani 
fested,  I  feel  cause  for  profound  and 
grateful  acknowledgment. 

To  every  individual  of  this  meeting, 
therefore,  1  would  now  most  respectfully 
make  that  acknowledgment;  and  with 
every  one,  as  with  hands  joined  in  mu 
tual  greeting,  I  reciprocate  friendly  salu 
tation,  respect,  and  good  wishes. 

But,  Gentlemen,  although  I  am  well 
assured  of  your  personal  regard,  I  can 
not  fail  to  know,  that  the  times,  the 
political  and  commercial  condition  of 
things  which  exists  among  us,  and  an 
intelligent  spirit,  awakened  to  new  ac 
tivity  and  a  new  degree  of  anxiety,  have 
mainly  contributed  to  fill  these  avenues 
and  crowd  these  halls.  At  a  moment  of 
difficulty,  and  of  much  alarm,  you  come 


here  as  Whigs  of  New  York,  to  meet 
one  whom  you  believe  to  be  bound  to 
you  by  common  principles  and  common 
sentiments,  and  pursuing,  with  you,  a 
common  object.  Gentlemen,  I  am  proud 
to  admit  this  community  of  our  princi 
ples,  and  this  identity  of  our  objects. 
You  are  for  the  Constitution  of  the 
country;  so  am  I.  You  are  for  the 
Union  of  the  States;  so  am  I.  You  are 
for  equal  laws,  for  the  equal  rights  of 
all  men,  for  constitutional  and  just  re 
straints  on  power,  for  the  substance  and 
not  the  shadowy  image  only  of  popular 
institutions,  for  a  government  which  has 
liberty  for  its  spirit  and  soul,  as  well  as 
in  its  forms;  and  so  am  I.  You  feel 
that  if.  in  warm  party  times,  the  execu 
tive  power  is  in  hands  distinguished  for 
boldness,  for  great  success,  for  persever 
ance,  and  other  qualities  which  strike 
men's  rninds  strongly,  there  is  danger 
of  derangement  of  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment,  danger  of  a  new  division  of 
those  powers,  in  which  the  executive  is 
likely  to  obtain  the  lion's  part;  and 
danger  of  a  state  of  things  in  which  the 
more  popular  branches  of  the  govern 
ment,  instead  of  being  guards  and  sen 
tinels  against  any  encroachments  from 
the  executive,  seek,  rather,  support  from 
its  patronage,  safety  against  the  com 
plaints  of  the  people  in  its  ample  and 
all-protecting  favor,  and  refuge  in  its 
power;  and  so  I  feel,  and  so  I  have  felt 
for  eight  long  and  anxious  years. 

You  believe  that  a  very  efficient  and 
powerful  cause  in  the  production  of  the 
evils  which  now  fall  on  the  industrious 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


423 


and  commercial  classes  of  the  commu 
nity,  is  the  derangement  of  the  cur 
rency,  the  destruction  of  the  exchanges, 
and  the  unnatural  and  unnecessary  mis- 
placement  of  the  specie  of  the  country, 
by  unauthorized  and  illegal  treasury  or 
ders.  So  do  1  believe.  I  predicted  all 
this  from  the  beginning,  and  from  be 
fore  the  beginning.  I  predicted  it  all, 
last  spring,  when  that  was  attempted  to 
be  done  by  law  which  was  afterwards 
done  by  executive  authority ;  and  from 
the  moment  of  the  exercise  of  that  ex 
ecutive  authority  to  the  present  time,  I 
have  both  foreseen  and  seen  the  regular 
progress  of  things  under  it,  from  incon 
venience  and  embarrassment,  to  pres 
sure,  loss  of  confidence,  disorder,  arid 
bankruptcies. 

Gentlemen,  I  mean,  on  this  occasion, 
to  speak  my  sentiments  freely  on  the 
great  topics  of  the  day.  I  have  nothing 
to  conceal,  and  shall  therefore  conceal 
nothing.  In  regard  to  political  senti 
ments,  purposes,  or  objects,  there  is 
nothing  in  my  heart  which  I  am 
ashamed  of;  I  shall  throw  it  all  open, 
therefore,  to  you,  and  to  all  men.  [That 
is  right,  said  some  one  in  the  crowd; 
let  us  have  it,  with  no  non-committal.] 
Yes,  my  friend,  without  non-committal 
or  evasion,  without  barren  generalities 
or  empty  phrase,  without  if  or  but,  with 
out  a  single  touch,  in  all  I  say,  bearing 
the  oracular  character  of  an  Inaugural, 
I  shall,  on  this  occasion,  speak  my  mind 
plainly,  freely,  and  independently,  to 
men  who  are  just  as  free  to  concur  or 
not  to  concur  in  my  sentiments,  as  I  am 
to  utter  them.  I  think  you  are  entitled 
to  hear  my  opinions  freely  and  frankly 
spoken  ;  but  I  freely  acknowledge  that  you 
are  still  more  clearly  entitled  to  retain, 
and  maintain,  your  own  opinions,  how 
ever  they  may  differ  or  agree  with  mine. 

It  is  true,  Gentlemen,  that  I  have 
contemplated  the  relinquishment  of  my 
seat  in  the  Senate  for  the  residue  of  the 
term,  now  two  years,  for  which  I  was 
chosen.  This  resolution  was  not  taken 
from  disgust  or  discouragement,  al 
though  some  things  have  certainly  hap 
pened  which  might  excite  both  those 
feelings.  But  in  popular  governments, 


men  must  not  suffer  themselves  to  be 
permanently  disgusted  by  occasional  ex 
hibitions  of  political  harlequinism,  or 
deeply  discouraged,  although  their  ef 
forts  to  awaken  the  people  to  what  they 
deem  the  dangerous  tendency  of  public 
measures  be  not  crowned  with  immedi 
ate  success.  It  was  altogether  from 
other  causes,  and  other  considerations, 
that,  after  an  uninterrupted  service  of 
fourteen  or  fifteen  years,  I  naturally 
desired  a  respite.  But  those  whose 
opinions  I  am  bound  to  respect  saw 
objections  to  a  present  withdrawal  from 
Congress;  and  I  have  yielded  my  own 
strong  desire  to  their  convictions  of 
what  the  public  good  requires. 

Gentlemen,  in  speaking  here  on  the 
subjects  which  now  so  much  interest  the 
community,  I  wish  in  the  outset  to  dis 
claim  all  personal  disrespect  towards 
individuals.  He  l  whose  character  and 
fortune  have  exercised  such  a  decisive 
influence  on  our  politics  for  eight  years, 
has  now  retired  from  public  station.  I 
pursue  him  with  no  personal  reflections, 
no  reproaches.  Between  him  and  my 
self  there  has  always  existed  a  respect 
ful  personal  intercourse.  Moments  have 
existed,  indeed,  critical  and  decisive 
upon  the  general  success  of  his  adminis 
tration,  in  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
regard  my  aid  as  not  altogether  unim 
portant.  I  now  speak  of  him  respect 
fully,  as  a  distinguished  soldier,  as  one 
who,  in  that  character,  has  done  the 
state  much  service;  as  a  man,  too,  of 
strong  and  decided  character,  of  unsub 
dued  resolution  and  perseverance  in 
whatever  he  undertakes.  In  speaking 
of  his  civil  administration,  I  speak 
without  censoriousness,  or  harsh  impu 
tation  of  motives;  I  wish  him  health 
and  happiness  in  his  retirement;  but  I 
must  still  speak  as  I  think  of  his  public 
measures,  and  of  their  general  bearing 
and  tendency,  not  only  on  the  present 
interests  of  the  country,  but  also  on  the 
well-being  and  security  of  the  govern 
ment  itself. 

There  are,  however,  some  topics  of  a 
less  urgent  present  application  and  im 
portance,  upon  which  I  wish  to  say  a  few 

1  President  Jackson. 


424 


RECEPTION  AT   NEW   YORK. 


words,  before  I  advert  to  those  which 
are  more  immediately  connected  with 
the  present  distressed  state  of  things. 

My  learned  and  highly-valued  friend 
(Mr.  Ogden)  who  has  addressed  me  in 
your  behalf,  has  been  kindly  pleased 
to  speak  of  my  political  career  as  being 
marked  by  a  freedom  from  local  inter 
ests  and  prejudices,  and  a  devotion  to 
liberal  and  comprehensive  views  of  pub 
lic  policy. 

I  will  not  say  that  this  compliment  is 
deserved.  I  will  only  say,  that  I  have 
earnestly  endeavored  to  deserve  it.  Gen 
tlemen,  the  general  government,  to  the 
extent  of  its  power,  is  national.  It  is 
not  consolidated,  it  does  not  embrace  all 
powers  of  government.  On  the  con 
trary,  it  is  delegated,  restrained,  strictly 
limited. 

But  what  powers  it  does  possess,  it 
possesses  for  the  general,  not  for  any 
partial  or  local  good.  It  extends  over  a 
vast  territory,  embracing  now  six-and- 
twenty  States,  with  interests  various, 
but  not  irreconcilable,  infinitely  diver 
sified,  but  capable  of  being  all  blended 
into  political  harmony. 

He,  however,  who  would  produce  this 
harmony  must  survey  the  whole  field, 
as  if  all  parts  were  as  interesting  to 
himself  as  they  are  to  others,  and  with 
that  generous,  patriotic  feeling,  prompter 
and  better  than  the  mere  dictates  of  cool 
reason,  which  leads  him  to  embrace  the 
whole  with  affectionate  regard,  as  con 
stituting,  altogether,  that  object  which 
he  is  so  much  bound  to  respect,  to  de 
fend,  and  to  love, — his  country.  We 
have  around  us,  and  more  or  less  within 
the  influence  and  protection  of  the  gen 
eral  government,  all  the  great  interests 
of  agriculture,  navigation,  commerce, 
manufactures,  the  fisheries,  and  the  me 
chanic  arts.  The  duties  of  the  govern 
ment,  then,  certainly  extend  over  all 
this  territory,  and  embrace  all  these  vast 
interests.  We  have  a  maritime  frontier, 
a  sea-coast  of  many  thousand  miles;  and 
while  no  one  doubts  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  government  to  defend  this  coast  by 
suitable  military  preparations,  there  are 
those  who  yet  suppose  that  the  powers 
of  government  stop  at  this  point;  and 


that  as  to  works  of  peace  and  works  of 
improvement,  they  are  beyond  our  con- 
stitutioftal  limits.  I  have  ever  thought 
otherwise.  Congress  has  a  right,,  no 
doubt,  to  declare  war,  and  to  provide 
armies  and  navies;  and  it  has  necessa 
rily  the  right  to  build  fortifications  and 
batteries,  to  protect  the  coast  from  the 
effects  of  war.  But  Congress  has  au 
thority  also,  and  it  is  its  duty,  to  regu 
late  commerce,  and  it  has  the  whole 
power  of  collecting  duties  on  imports 
and  tonnage.  It  must  have  ports  and 
harbors,  and  dock-yards  also,  for  its 
navies.  Very  early  in  the  history  of  the 
government,  it  was  decided  by  Congress, 
on  the  report  of  a  highly  respectable 
committee,  that  the  transfer  by  the 
States  to  Congress  of  the  power  of  col 
lecting  tonnage  and  other  duties,  and 
the  grant  of  the  authority  to  regulate 
commerce,  charged  Congress,  necessa 
rily,  with  the  duty  of  maintaining  such 
piers  and  wharves  and  lighthouses,  and 
of  making  such  improvements,  as  might 
have  been  expected  to  be  done  by  the 
States,  if  they  had  retained  the  usual 
means,  by  retaining  the  power  of  col 
lecting  duties  on  imports.  The  States, 
it  was  admitted,  had  parted  with  this 
power;  and  the  duty  of  protecting  and 
facilitating  commerce  by  these  means 
had  passed,  along  with  this  power,  into 
other  hands.  I  have  never  hesitated, 
therefore,  when  the  state  of  the  treasury 
would  admit,  to  vote  for  reasonable 
appropriations,  for  breakwaters,  light 
houses,  piers,  harbors,  and  similar  pub 
lic  works,  on  any  part  of  the  whole 
Atlantic  coast  or  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
from  Maine  to  Louisiana. 

But  how  stands  the  inland  frontier  ? 
How  is  it  along  the  vast  lakes  and  the 
mighty  rivers  of  the  North  and  West  ? 
Do  our  constitutional  rights  and  duties 
terminate  where  the  water  ceases  to  be 
salt  ?  or  do  they  exist,  in  full  vigor,  on 
the  shores  of  these  inland  seas  ?  I  never 
could  doubt  about  this;  and  yet,  Gen 
tlemen,  I  remember  even  to  have  parti 
cipated  in  a  warm  debate,  in  the  Senate, 
some  years  ago,  upon  the  constitutional 
right  of  Congress  to  make  an  appropria 
tion  for  a  pier  in  the  harbor  of  Buffalo. 


RECEPTION  AT   NEW  YORK. 


425 


What!  make  a  harbor  at  Buffalo,  where 
Nature  never  made  any,  and  where  there 
fore  it  was  never  intended  any  ever 
should  be  made !  Take  money  from  the 
people  to  run  out  piers  from  the  sandy 
shores  of  Lake  Erie,  or  deepen  the  chan 
nels  of  her  shallow  rivers !  Where  was 
the  constitutional  authority  for  this  ? 
Where  would  such  strides  of  power  stop? 
How  long  would  the  States  have  any 
power  at  all  left,  if  their  territory  might 
be  ruthlessly  invaded  for  such  unhal 
lowed  purposes,  or  how  long  would  the 
people  have  any  money  in  their  pockets, 
if  the  government  of  the  United  States 
might  tax  them,  at  pleasure,  for  such 
extravagant  projects  as  these  ?  Piers, 
wharves,  harbors,  and  breakwaters  in 
the  Lakes!  These  arguments,  Gentle 
men,  however  earnestly  put  forth  here 
tofore,  do  not  strike  us  with  great  power, 
at  the  present  day,  if  we  stand  on  the 
shores  of  Lake  Erie,  and  see  hundreds 
of  vessels,  with  valuable  cargoes  and 
thousands  of  valuable  lives,  moving  on 
its  waters,  with  few  shelters  from  the 
storm,  except  what  is  furnished  by  the 
havens  created,  or  made  useful,  by 
the  aid  of  government.  These  great 
lakes,  stretching  away  many  thousands 
of  miles,  not  in  a  straight  line,  but  with 
turns  and  deflections,  as  if  designed  to 
reach,  by  water  communication,  the 
greatest  possible  number  of  important 
points  through  a  region  of  vast  extent, 
cannot  but  arrest  the  attention  of  any 
one  who  looks  upon  the  map.  They  lie 
connected,  but  variously  placed ;  and  in 
terspersed,  as  if  with  studied  variety  of 
form  and  direction,  over  that  part  of  the 
country.  They  were  made  for  man,  and 
admirably  adapted  for  his  use  and  con 
venience.  Looking,  Gentlemen,  over 
our  whole  country,  comprehending  in 
our  survey  the  Atlantic  coast,  with  its 
thick  population,  its  advanced  agricul 
ture,  its  extended  commerce,  its  manu 
factures  and  mechanic  arts,  its  varie 
ties  of  communication,  its  wealth,  and 
its  general  improvements;  and  looking, 
then,  to  the  interior,  to  the  immense 
tracts  of  fresh,  fertile,  and  cheap  lands, 
bounded  by  so  many  lakes,  and  watered 
by  so  many  magnificent  rivers,  let  me 


ask  if  such  a  MAP  was  ever  before  pre 
sented  to  the  eye  of  any  statesman,  as 
the  theatre  for  the  exercise  of  his  wis 
dom  and  patriotism  ?  And  let  me  ask, 
too,  if  any  man  is  fit  to  act  a  part,  on  such 
a  theatre,  who  does  not  comprehend  the 
whole  of  it  within  the  scope  of  his  policy, 
and  embrace  it  all  as  his  country  ? 

Again,  Gentlemen,  we  are  one  in  re 
spect  to  the  glorious  Constitution  under 
which  we  live.  We  are  all  united  in 
the  great  brotherhood  of  American  lib 
erty.  Descending  from  the  same  ances 
tors,  bred  in  the  same  school,  taught  in 
infancy  to  imbibe  the  same  general  po 
litical  sentiments,  Americans  aD,  by 
birth,  education,  and  principle,  what  but 
a  narrow  mind,  or  woful  ignorance,  or 
besotted  selfishness,  or  prejudice  ten 
times  blinded,  can  lead  any  of  us  to  re 
gard  the  citizens  of  any  part  of  the  coun 
try  as  strangers  and  aliens  ? 

The  solemn  truth,  moreover,  is  before 
us,  that  a  common  political  fate  attends 
us  all. 

Under  the  present  Constitution,  wisely 
and  conscientiously  administered,  all  are 
safe,  happy,  and  renowned.  The  meas 
ure  of  our  country's  fame  may  fill  all 
our  breasts.  It  is  fame  enough  for  us 
all  to  partake  in  her  glory,  if  we  will 
carry  her  character  onward  to  its  true 
destiny.  But  if  the  system  is  broken, 
its  fragments  must  fall  alike  on  all. 
Not  only  the  cause  of  American  liberty, 
but  the  grand  cause  of  liberty  through 
out  the  whole  earth,  depends,  in  a 
great  measure,  on  upholding  the  Con 
stitution  and  Union  of  these  States.  If 
shattered  and  destroyed,  no  matter  by 
what  cause,  the  peculiar  and  cherished 
idea  of  United  American  Liberty  will  be 
no  more  for  ever.  There  may  be  free 
states,  it  is  possible,  when  there  shall  be 
separate  states.  There  may  be  many 
loose,  and  feeble,  and  hostile  confedera 
cies,  where  there  is  now  one  great  and 
united  confederacy.  But  the  noble  idea 
of  United  American  Liberty,  of  our  lib 
erty,  such  as  our  fathers  established  it, 
will  be  extinguished  for  ever.  Frag 
ments  and  shattered  columns  of  the  edi 
fice  may  be  found  remaining;  and  mel 
ancholy  and  mournful  ruins  will  they  be. 


426 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


The  august  temple  itself  will  be  pros 
trate  in  the  dust.  Gentlemen,  the  citi 
zens  of  this  republic  cannot  sever  their 
fortunes.  A  common  fate  awaits  us. 
In  the  honor  of  upholding,  or  in  the  dis 
grace  of  undermining  the  Constitution, 
we  shall  all  necessarily  partake.  Let  us 
then  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  it  is, 
and  by  our  country  as  it  is,  one,  united, 
and  entire ;  let  it  be  a  truth  engraven  on 
our  hearts,  let  it  be  borne  on  the  flag 
under  which  we  rally,  in  every  exigency, 
that  we  have  ONE  COUNTRY,  ONE  CON 
STITUTION,  ONE  DESTINY. 

Gentlemen,  of  our  interior  adminis 
tration,  the  public  lands  constitute  a 
highly  important  part.  This  is  a  sub 
ject  of  great  interest,  and  it  ought  to  at 
tract  much  more  attention  than  it  has 
hitherto  received,  especially  from  the 
people  of  the  Atlantic  States.  The  pub 
lic  lands  are  public  property.  They  be 
long  to  the  people  of  all  the  States.  A 
vast  portion  of  them  is  composed  of  ter 
ritories  which  were  ceded  by  individual 
States  to  the  United  States,  after  the 
close  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  and  be 
fore  the  adoption  of  the  present  Consti 
tution.  The  history  of  these  cessions, 
and  the  reasons  for  making  them,  are 
familiar  to  you.  Some  of  the  Old  Thir 
teen  possessed  large  tracts  of  unsettled 
lands  within  their  chartered  limits.  The 
Revolution  had  established  their  title  to 
these  lands,  and  as  the  Revolution  had 
been  brought  about  by  the  common 
treasure  and  the  common  blood  of  all 
the  Colonies,  it  was  thought  not  unrea 
sonable  that  these  unsettled  lands  should 
be  transferred  to  the  United  States,  to 
pay  the  debt  created  by  the  war,  and 
afterwards  to  remain  as  a  fund  for  the 
use  of  all  the  States.  This  is  the  well- 
known  origin  of  the  title  possessed  by 
the  United  States  to  lands  northwest  of 
the  River  Ohio. 

By  treaties  with  France  and  Spain, 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  containing  many 
millions  of  acres  of  public  land,  have 
been  since  acquired.  The  cost  of  these 
acquisitions  was  paid,  of  course,  by  the 
general  government,  and  was  thus  a 
charge  upon  the  whole  people.  The 


public  lands,  therefore,  all  and  singu 
lar,  are  national  property;  granted  to 
the  Untted  States,  purchased  by  the 
United  States,  paid  for  by  all  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States. 

The  idea,  that,  when  a  new  State  is 
created,  the  public  lands  lying  within 
her  territory  become  the  property  of  such 
new  State  in  consequence  of  her  sover 
eignty,  is  too  preposterous  for  serious 
refutation.  Such  notions  have  hereto 
fore  been  advanced  in  Congress,  but  no 
body  has  sustained  them.  They  were 
rejected  and  abandoned,  although  one 
cannot  say  whether  they  may  not  be  re 
vived,  in  consequence  of  recent  prop 
ositions  which  have  been  made  in  the 
Senate.  The  new  States  are  admitted 
on  express  conditions,  recognizing,  to 
the  fullest  extent,  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  the  public  lands  within  their 
borders;  and  it  is  no  more  reasonable 
to  contend  that  some  indefinite  idea  of 
State  sovereignty  overrides  all  these  stip 
ulations,  and  makes  the  lands  the  prop 
erty  of  the  States,  against  the  provisions 
and  conditions  of  their  own  constitu 
tion,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  than  it  would  be,  that  a  similar 
doctrine  entitled  the  State  of  New  York 
to  the  money  collected  at  the  custom 
house  in  this  city;  since  it  is  no  more 
inconsistent  with  sovereignty  that  one 
government  should  hold  lands,  for  the 
purpose  of  sale,  within  the  territory  of 
another,  than  it  is  that  it  should  lay  and 
collect  taxes  and  duties  within  such  ter 
ritory.  Whatever  extravagant  preten 
sions  may  have  been  set  up  heretofore, 
there  was  not,  I  suppose,  an  enlightened 
man  in  the  whole  West,  who  insisted  on 
any  such  right  in  the  States,  when  the 
proposition  to  cede  the  lands  to  the 
States  was  made,  in  the  late  session  of 
Congress.  The  public  lands  being,  there 
fore,  the  common  property  of  all  the 
people  of  all  the  States,  1  shall  never 
consent  to  give  them  away  to  particular 
States,  or  to  dispose  of  them  otherwise 
than  for  the  general  good,  and  the  gen 
eral  use  of  the  whole  country. 

I  felt  bound,  therefore,  on  the  occa 
sion  just  alluded  to,  to  resist  at  the 
threshold  a  proposition  to  cede  the  pub- 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW    YORK. 


427 


lie  lands  to  the  States  in  which  they  lie, 
on  certain  conditions.  I  very  much  re 
gretted  the  introduction  of  such  a  meas 
ure,  as  its  effect  must  be,  I  fear,  only  to 
agitate  what  was  well  settled,  and  to  dis 
turb  that  course  of  proceeding,  in  regard 
to  the  public  lands,  which  forty  years  of 
experience  have  shown  to  be  so  wise, 
and  so  satisfactory  in  its  operation,  both 
to  the  people  of  the  old  States  and  to 
those  of  the  new. 

But,  Gentlemen,  although  the  public 
lands  are  not  to  be  given  away,  nor 
ceded  to  particular  States,  a  very  liberal 
policy  in  regard  to  them  ought  certainly 
to  prevail.  Such  a  policy  has  prevailed, 
and  I  have  steadily  supported  it,  and 
shall  continue  to  support  it  so  long  as  I 
may  remain  in  public  life.  The  main 
object,  in  regard  to  these  lands,  is  un 
doubtedly  to  settle  them,  so  fast  as  the 
growth  of  our  population,  and  its  aug 
mentation  by  emigration,  may  enable  us 
to  settle  them. 

The  lands,  therefore,  should  be  sold, 
at  a  low  price;  and,  for  one,  I  have 
never  doubted  the  right  or  expediency 
of  granting  portions  of  the  lands  them 
selves,  or  of  making  grants  of  money 
for  objects  of  internal  improvement  con 
nected  with  them. 

I  have  always  supported  liberal  ap 
propriations  for  the  purpose  of  opening 
communications  to  and  through  these 
lands,  by  common  roads,  canals,  and 
railroads ;  and  where  lands  of  little  value 
have  been  long  in  market,  and,  on  ac 
count  of  their  indifferent  quality,  are  not 
likely  to  command  a  common  price,  I 
know  no  objection  to  a  reduction  of 
price,  as  to  such  lands,  so  that  they  may 
pass  into  private  ownership.  Nor  do  I 
feel  any  objections  to  removing  those 
restraints  which  prevent  the  States  from 
taxing  the  lands  for  five  years  after  they 
are  sold.  But  while,  in  these  and  all 
other  respects,  I  am  not  only  reconciled 
to  a  liberal  policy,  but  espouse  it  and 
support  it,  and  have  constantly  done 
so,  I  still  hold  the  national  domain  to 
be  the  general  property  of  the  country, 
confined  to  the  care  of  Congress,  and 
which  Congress  is  solemnly  bound  to  pro 
tect  and  preserve  for  the  common  good. 


The  benefit  derived  from  the  public 
lands,  after  all,  is,  and  must  be,  in  the 
greatest  degree,  enjoyed  by  those  who 
buy  them  and  settle  upon  them.  The 
original  price  paid  to  government  con 
stitutes  but  a  small  part  of  their  actual 
value.  Their  immediate  rise  in  value, 
in  the  hands  of  the  settler,  gives  him 
competence.  He  exercises  a  power  of 
selection  over  a  vast  region  of  fertile  ter 
ritory,  all  on  sale  at  the  same  price,  and 
that  price  an  exceedingly  low  one.  Se 
lection  is  no  sooner  made,  cultivation  is 
no  sooner  begun,  and  the  first  furrow 
turned,  than  he  already  finds  himself  a 
man  of  property.  These  are  the  advan 
tages  of  Western  emigrants  and  West 
ern  settlers ;  and  they  are  such,  certainly, 
as  no  country  on  earth  ever  before  af 
forded  to  her  citizens.  This  opportu 
nity  of  purchase  and  settlement,  this 
certainty  of  enhanced  value,  these  sure 
means  of  immediate  competence  and  ul 
timate  wealth,  —  all  these  are  the  rights 
and  the  blessings  of  the  people  of  the 
West,  and  they  have  my  hearty  wishes 
for  their  full  and  perfect  enjoyment. 

I  desire  to  see  the  public  lands  culti 
vated  and  occupied.  I  desire  the  growth 
and  prosperity  of  the  West,  and  the  full 
est  development  of  its  vast  and  extraor 
dinary  resources.  I  wish  to  bring  it  near 
to  us,  by  every  species  of  useful  commu 
nication.  I  see,  not  without  admiration 
and  amazement,  but  yet  without  envy  or 
jealousy,  States  of  recent  origin  already 
containing  more  people  than  Massachu 
setts.  These  people  I  know  to  be  part  of 
ourselves;  they  have  proceeded  from  the 
midst  of  us,  and  we  may  trust  that  they 
are  not  likely  to  separate  themselves,  in 
interest  or  in  feeling,  from  their  kindred, 
whom  they  have  left  on  the  farms  and 
around  the  hearths  of  their  common 
fathers. 

A  liberal  policy,  a  sympathy  with  its 
interests,  an  enlightened  and  generous 
feeling  of  participation  in  its  prosperity, 
are  due  to  the  West,  and  will  be  met,  I 
doubt  not,  by  a  return  of  sentiments 
equally  cordial  and  equally  patriotic. 

Gentlemen,  the  general  question  of 
revenue  is  very  much  connected  with 
this  subject  of  the  public  lands,  and  I 


428 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK. 


will  therefore,  in  a  very  few  words,  ex 
press  my  views  on  that  point. 

The  revenue  involves,  not  only  the 
supply  of  the  treasury  with  money,  but 
the  question  of  protection  to  manufac 
tures.  On  these  connected  subjects, 
therefore,  Gentlemen,  as  I  have  prom 
ised  to  keep  nothing  back,  I  will  state 
my  opinions  plainly,  but  very  shortly. 

I  am  in  favor  of  such  a  revenue  as 
shall  be  equal  to  all  the  just  and  reason 
able  wants  of  the  government;  and  I 
am  decidedly  opposed  to  all  collection 
or  accumulation  of  revenue  beyond  this 
point.  An  extravagant  government  ex 
penditure,  and  unnecessary  accumula 
tion  in  the  treasury,  are  both,  of  all 
things,  to  be  most  studiously  avoided. 

I  am  in  favor  of  protecting  American 
industry  and  labor,  not  only  as  employed 
in  large  manufactories,  but  also,  and 
more  especially,  as  employed  in  the  va 
rious  mechanic  arts,  carried  on  by  per 
sons  of  small  capitals,  and  living  by  the 
earnings  of  their  own  personal  industry. 
Every  city  in  the  Union,  and  none  more 
than  this,  would  feel  severely  the  conse 
quences  of  departing  from  the  ancient 
and  continued  policy  of  the  government 
respecting  this  last  branch  of  protec 
tion.  If  duties  were  to  be  abolished  on 
hats,  boots,  shoes,  and  other  articles  of 
leather,  and  on  the  articles  fabricated 
of  brass,  tin,  and  iron,  and  on  ready- 
made  clothes,  carriages,  furniture,  and 
many  similar  articles,  thousands  of  per 
sons  would  be  immediately  thrown  out 
of  employment  in  this  city,  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  Union.  Protection,  in  this 
respect,  of  our  own  labor  against  the 
cheaper,  ill-paid,  half-fed,  and  pauper 
labor  of  Europe,  is,  in  my  opinion,  a 
duty  which  the  country  owes  to  its  own 
citizens.  I  am,  therefore,  decidedly  for 
protecting  our  own  industry  and  our 
own  labor. 

In  the  next  place,  Gentlemen,  I  am 
of  opinion,  that,  with  no  more  than 
usual  skill  in  the  application  of  the 
well-tried  principles  of  discriminating 
and  specific  duties,  all  the  branches  of 
national  industry  may  be  protected, 
without  imposing  such  duties  on  im 
ports  as  shall  overcharge  the  treasury. 


And  as  to  the  revenues  arising  from 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  I  am  of 
opinion*that  they  ought  to  be  set  apart 
for  the  use  of  the  States.  The  States 
need  the  money.  The  government  of 
the  United  States  does  not  need  it. 
Many  of  the  States  have  contracted 
large  debts  for  objects  of  internal  im 
provement,  and  others  of  them  have 
important  objects  which  they  would 
wish  to  accomplish.  The  lands  were 
originally  granted  for  the  use  of  the 
several  States;  and  now  that  their  pro 
ceeds  are  not  necessary  for  the  purposes 
of  the  general  government,  lam  of  opin 
ion  that  they  should  go  to  the  States, 
and  to  the  people  of  the  States,  upon  an 
equal  principle.  Set  apart,  then,  the 
proceeds  of  the  public  lands  for  the  use 
of  the  States ;  supply  the  treasury  from 
duties  on  imports;  apply  to  these  duties 
a  just  and  careful  discrimination,  in 
favor  of  articles  produced  at  home  by 
our  own  labor,  and  thus  support,  to 
a  fair  extent,  our  own  manufactures. 
These,  Gentlemen,  appear  to  me  to  be 
the  general  outlines  of  that  policy  which 
the  present  condition  of  the  country  re 
quires  us  to  adopt. 

Gentlemen,  proposing  to  express  opin 
ions  on  the  principal  subjects  of  interest 
at  the  present  moment,  it  is  impossible 
to  overlook  the  delicate  question  which 
has  arisen  from  events  which  have  hap 
pened  in  the  late  Mexican  province  of 
Texas.  The  independence  of  that  prov 
ince  has  now  been  recognized  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  Con 
gress  gave  the  President  the  means,  to 
be  used  when  he  saw  fit,  of  opening  a 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  its  govern 
ment,  and  the  late  President  imme 
diately  made  use  of  those  means. 

I  saw  no  objection,  under  the  circum 
stances,  to  voting  an  appropriation  to  be 
used  when  the  President  should  think  the 
proper  time  had  come;  and  he  deemed, 
very  promptly,  it  is  true,  that  the  time 
had  already  arrived.  Certainly,  Gentle 
men,  the  history  of  Texas  is  not  a  little 
wonderful.  A  very  few  people,  in  a 
very  short  time,  have  established  a  gov 
ernment  for  themselves,  against  the  au- 


RECEPTION   AT  NEW   YORK. 


429 


thority  of  the  parent  state;  and  this 
government,  it  is  generally  supposed, 
there  is  little  probability,  at  the  present 
moment,  of  the  parent  state  being  able 
to  overturn. 

This  government  is,  in  form,  a  copy 
of  our  own.  It  is  an  American  consti 
tution,  substantially  after  the  great 
American  model.  We  all,  therefore, 
must  wish  it  success;  and  there  is  no 
one  who  will  more  heartily  rejoice  than 
I  shall,  to  see  an  independent  com 
munity,  intelligent,  industrious,  and 
friendly  towards  us,  springing  up,  and 
rising  into  happiness,  distinction,  and 
power,  upon  our  own  principles  of  lib 
erty  and  government. 

But  it  cannot  be  disguised,  Gentle 
men,  that  a  desire,  or  an  intention,  is 
already  manifested  to  annex  Texas  to 
the  United  States.  On  a  subject  of 
such  mighty  magnitude  as  this,  and  at 
a  moment  when  the  public  attention  is 
drawn  to  it,  I  should  feel  myself  want 
ing  in  candor,  if  I  did  not  express  my 
opinion;  since  all  must  suppose  that,  on 
such  a  question,  it  is  impossible  that  I 
should  be  without  some  opinion. 

I  say  then,  Gentlemen,  in  all  frank 
ness,  that  I  see  objections,  I  think 
insurmountable  objections,  to  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States. 
When  the  Constitution  was  formed,  it 
is  not  probable  that  either  its  framers 
or  the  people  ever  looked  to  the  admis 
sion  of  any  States  into  the  Union,  ex 
cept  such  as  then  already  existed,  and 
such  as  should  be  formed  out  of  terri 
tories  then  already  belonging  to  the 
United  States.  Fifteen  years  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  however, 
the  case  of  Louisiana  arose.  Louisiana 
was  obtained  by  treaty  with  France,  who 
had  recently  obtained  it  from  Spain; 
but  the  object  of  this  acquisition,  cer 
tainly,  was  not  mere  extension  of  terri 
tory.  Other  great  political  interests 
were  connected  with  it.  Spain,  while 
she  possessed  Louisiana,  had  held  the 
mouths  of  the  great  rivers  which  rise  in 
the  Western  States,  and  flow  into  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.  She  had  disputed  our 
use  of  these  rivers  already,  and  with  a 
powerful  nation  in  possession  of  these 


outlets  to  the  sea,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
commerce  of  all  the  West  was  in  danger 
of  perpetual  vexation.  The  command 
of  these  rivers  to  the  sea  was,  there 
fore,  the  great  object  aimed  at  in  the 
acquisition  of  Louisiana.  But  that  ac 
quisition  necessarily  brought  territory 
along  with  it,  and  three  States  now  ex 
ist,  formed  out  of  that  ancient  province. 

A  similar  policy,  arid  a  similar  neces 
sity,  though  perhaps  not  entirely  so  ur 
gent,  led  to  the  acquisition  of  Florida. 

Now,  no  such  necessity,  no  such  pol 
icy,  requires  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
The  accession  of  Texas  to  our  territory 
is  not  necessary  to  the  full  and  complete 
enjoyment  of  all  which  we  already  pos 
sess.  Her  case,  therefore,  stands  upon 
a  footing  entirely  different  from  that  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida.  There  being 
no  necessity  for  extending  the  limits  of 
the  Union  in  that  direction,  we  ought, 
I  think,  for  numerous  and  powerful 
reasons,  to  be  content  with  our  present 
boundaries. 

Gentlemen,  we  all  see  that,  by  whom 
soever  possessed,  Texas  is  likely  to  be  a 
slave-holding  country;  and  I  frankly 
avow  my  entire  unwillingness  to  do  any 
thing  that  shall  extend  the  slavery  of 
the  African  race  on  this  continent,  or 
add  other  slave-holding  States  to  the 
Union.  When  I  say  that  I  regard  slav 
ery  in  itself  as  a  great  moral,  social, 
and  political  evil,  1  only  use  language 
which  has  been  adopted  by  distinguished 
men,  themselves  citizens  of  slave-holding 
States.  I  shall  do  nothing,  therefore, 
to  favor  or  encourage  its  further  exten 
sion.  We  have  slavery  already  amongst 
us.  The  Constitution  found  it  in  the 
Union ;  it  recognized  it,  and  gave  it  sol 
emn  guaranties.  To  the  full  extent  of 
these  guaranties  we  are  all  bound,  in 
honor,  in  justice,  and  by  the  Constitu 
tion.  All  the  stipulations  contained  in 
the  Constitution  in  favor  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  which  are  already  in  the 
Union  ought  to  be  fulfilled,  and,  so  far 
as  depends  on  me,  shall  be  fulfilled,  in 
the  fulness  of  their  spirit  and  to  the  ex 
actness  of  their  letter.  Slavery,  as  it 
exists  in  the  States,  is  beyond  the  reach 
of  Congress.  It  is  a  concern  of  the 


430 


RECEPTION  AT   NEW  YORK. 


States  themselves;  they  have  never  sub 
mitted  it  to  Congress,  and  Congress  has 
no  rightful  power  over  it.  I  shall  con 
cur,  therefore,  in  no  act,  no  measure, 
no  menace,  no  indication  of  purpose, 
which  shall  interfere  or  threaten  to  in 
terfere  with  the  exclusive  authority  of 
the  several  States  over  the  subject  of 
slavery  as  it  exists  within  their  respec 
tive  limits.  All  this  appears  to  me  to  be 
matter  of  plain  and  imperative  duty. 

But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  admit 
ting  new  States,  the  subject  assumes  an 
entirely  different  aspect.  Our  rights 
and  our  duties  are  then  both  different. 

The  free  States,  and  all  the  States, 
are  then  at  liberty  to  accept  or  to  reject. 
When  it  is  proposed  to  bring  new  mem 
bers  into  this  political  partnership,  the 
old  members  have  a  right  to  say  on 
what  terms  such  new  partners  are  to 
come  in,  and  what  they  are  to  bring 
along  with  them.  In  my  opinion,  the 
people  of  the  United  States  will  not 
consent  to  bring  into  the  Union  a  new, 
vastly  extensive,  and  slave-holding  coun 
try,  large  enough  for  half  a  dozen  or 
a  dozen  States.  In  my  opinion,  they 
ought  not  to  consent  to  it.  Indeed,  I 
am  altogether  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what 
possible  benefit  any  part  of  this  country 
can  expect  to  derive  from  such  annexa 
tion.  Any  benefit  to  any  part  is  at 
least  doubtful  and  uncertain ;  the  objec 
tions  are  obvious,  plain,  and  strong. 
On  the  general  question  of  slavery,  a 
great  portion  of  the  community  is  al 
ready  strongly  excited.  The  subject 
has  not  only  attracted  attention  as  a 
question  of  politics,  but  it  has  struck  a 
far  deeper-toned  chord.  It  has  arrested 
the  religious  feeling  of  the  country;  it 
has  taken  strong  hold  on  the  consciences 
of  men.  He  is  a  rash  man  indeed,  and 
little  conversant  with  human  nature, 
and  especially  has  he  a  very  erroneous 
estimate  of  the  character  of  the  people 
of  this  country,  who  supposes  that  a 
feeling  of  this  kind  is  to  be  trifled  with 
or  despised.  It  will  assuredly  cause  it 
self  to  be  respected.  It  may  be  rea 
soned  with,  it  may  be  made  willing,  I 
believe  it  is  entirely  willing,  to  fulfil  all 
existing  engagements  and  all  existing 


duties,  to  uphold  and  defend  the  Con 
stitution  as  it  is  established,  with  what 
ever  regrets  about  some  provisions  which 
it  does  actually  contain.  But  to  coerce 
it  into  silence,  to  endeavor  to  restrain 
its  free  expression,  to  seek  to  compress 
and  confine  it,  warm  as  it  is,  and  more 
heated  as  such  endeavors  would  inevi 
tably  render  it,  —  should  this  be  at 
tempted,  I  know  nothing,  even  in  the 
Constitution  or  in  the  Union  itself, 
which  would  not  be  endangered  by  the 
explosion  which  might  follow. 

I  see,  therefore,  no  political  necessity 
for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the 
Union;  no  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  it;  and  objections  to  it  of  a 
strong,  and,  in  my  judgment,  decisive 
character. 

I  believe  it  to  be  for  the  interest  and 
happiness  of  the  whole  Union  to  remain 
as  it  is,  without  diminution  and  with 
out  addition. 

Gentlemen,  I  pass  to  other  subjects. 
The  rapid  advancement  of  the  execu 
tive  authority  is  a  topic  which  has  al 
ready  been  alluded  to. 

I  believe  there  is  serious  cause  of 
alarm  from  this  source.  I  believe  the 
power  of  the  executive  has  increased,  is 
increasing,  and  ought  now  to  be  brought 
back  within  its  ancient  constitutional 
limits.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
motives  which  have  led  to  those  acts, 
which  I  believe  to  have  transcended  the 
boundaries  of  the  Constitution.  Good 
motives  may  always  be  assumed,  as  bad 
motives  may  always  be  imputed.  Good 
intentions  will  always  be  pleaded  for 
every  assumption  of  power;  but  they 
cannot  justify  it,  even  if  we  were  sure 
that  they  existed.  It  is  hardly  too 
strong  to  say,  that  the.  Constitution 
was  made  to  guard  the  people  against 
the  dangers  of  good  intention,  real  or 
pretended.  When  bad  intentions  are 
boldly  avowed,  the  people  will  promptly 
take  care  of  themselves.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  will  always  be  asked  why 
they  should  resist  or  question  that  exer 
cise  of  power  which  is  so  fair  in  its 
object,  so  plausible  and  patriotic  in  ap 
pearance,  and  which  has  the  public  good 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


431 


alone  confessedly  in  view?  Human  be 
ings,  we  may  be  assured,  will  generally 
exercise  power  when  they  can  get  it; 
and  they  will  exercise  it  most  undoubt 
edly,  in  popular  governments,  under 
pretences  of  public  safety  or  high  public 
interest.  It  may  be  very  possible  that 
good  intentions  do  really  sometimes  ex 
ist  when  constitutional  restraints  are 
disregarded.  There  are  men,  in  all 
ages,  who  mean  to  exercise  power  use 
fully;  but  who  mean  to  exercise  it. 
They  mean  to  govern  well;  but  they 
mean  to  govern.  They  promise  to  be 
kind  masters ;  but  they  mean  to  be  mas 
ters.  They  think  there  need  be  but 
little  restraint  upon  themselves.  Their 
notion  of  the  public  interest  is  apt  to  be 
quite  closely  connected  with  their  own 
exercise  of  authority.  They  may  not, 
indeed,  always  understand  their  own 
motives.  The  love  of  power  may  sink 
too  deep  in  their  own  hearts  even  for 
their  own  scrutiny,  and  may  pass  with 
themselves  for  mere  patriotism  and  be 
nevolence. 

A  character  has  been  drawn  of  a  very 
eminent  citizen  of  Massachusetts,  of 
the  last  age,  which,  though  I  think  it 
does  not  entirely  belong  to  him,  yet  very 
well  describes  a  certain  class  of  public 
men.  It  was  said  of  this  distinguished 
son  of  Massachusetts,  that  in  matters 
of  politics  and  government  he  cherished 
the  most  kind  and  benevolent  feelings 
towards  the  whole  earth.  He  earnestly 
desired  to  see  all  nations  well  governed ; 
and  to  bring  about  this  happy  result,  he 
wished  that  the  United  States  might 
govern  the  rest  of  the  world ;  that  Mas 
sachusetts  might  govern  the  United 
States;  that  Boston  might  govern  Mas 
sachusetts;  and  as  for  himself,  his  own 
humble  ambition  would  be  satisfied  by 
governing  the  little  town  of  Boston. 

I  do  not  intend,  Gentlemen,  to  com 
mit  so  unreasonable  a  trespass  on  your 
patience  as  to  discuss  all  those  cases  in 
which  I  think  executive  power  has  been 
unreasonably  extended.  I  shall  only 
allude  to  some  of  them,  and,  as  being 
earliest  in  the  order  of  time,  and  hardly 
second  to  any  other  in  importance,  I 


mention  the  practice  of  removal  from 
all  offices,  high  and  low,  for  opinion's 
sake,  and  on  the  avowed  ground  of  giv 
ing  patronage  to  the  President;  that  is 
to  say,  of  giving  him  the  power  of  in 
fluencing  men's  political  opinions  and 
political  conduct,  by  hopes  and  by  fears 
addressed  directly  to  their  pecuniary  in 
terests.  The  great  battle  on  this  point 
was  fought,  and  was  lost,  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  last  session 
of  Congress  under  Mr.  Adams's  admin 
istration.  After  General  Jackson  was 
known  to  be  elected,  and  before  his  term 
of  office  began,  many  important  offices 
became  vacant  by  the  usual  causes  of 
death  and  resignation.  Mr.  Adams,  of 
course,  nominated  persons  to  fill  these 
vacant  offices.  But  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  was  composed  of  the  friends  of 
General  Jackson;  and,  instead  of  acting 
on  these  nominations,  and  filling  the 
vacant  offices  with  ordinary  prompti 
tude,  the  nominations  were  postponed 
to  a  day  beyond  the  4th  of  March,  for 
the  purpose,  openly  avowed,  of  giving 
the  patronage  of  the  appointments  to 
the  President  who  was  then  coming  into 
office.  When  the  new  President  entered 
on  his  office,  he  withdrew  these  nomina 
tions,  and  sent  in  nominations  of  his 
own  friends  in  their  places.  I  was  of 
opinion  then,  and  am  of  opinion  now, 
that  that  decision  of  the  Senate  went  far 
to  unfix  the  proper  balance  of  the  gov 
ernment.  It  conferred  on  the  President 
the  power  of  rewards  for  party  pur 
poses,  or  personal  purposes,  without 
limit  or  control.  It  sanctioned,  mani 
festly  and  plainly,  that  exercise  of  power 
which  Mr.  Madison  had  said  would  de 
serve  impeachment;  and  it  completely 
defeated  one  great  object,  which  we  are 
told  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
contemplated,  in  the  manner  of  forming 
the  Senate;  that  is,  that  the  Senate 
might  be  a  body  not  changing  with  the 
election  of  a  President,  and  therefore 
likely  to  be  able  to  hold  over  him  some 
check  or  restraint  in  regard  to  bringing 
his  own  friends  and  partisans  into  power 
with  him,  and  thus  rewarding  their  ser 
vices  to  him  at  the  public  expense. 
The  debates  in  the  Senate,  on  these 


432 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


questions,  were  long  continued  and  ear 
nest.  They  were  of  course  in  secret 
session,  but  the  opinions  of  those  mem 
bers  who  opposed  this  course  have  all 
been  proved  true  by  the  result.  The 
contest  was  severe  and  ardent,  as  much 
so  as  any  that  I  have  ever  partaken  in ; 
and  I  have  seen  some  service  in  that 
sort  of  warfare. 

Gentlemen,  when  I  look  back  to  that 
eventful  moment,  when  I  remember 
who  those  were  who  upheld  this  claim 
for  executive  power,  with  so  much  zeal 
and  devotion,  as  well  as  with  such  great 
and  splendid  abilities,  and  when  I  look 
round  now,  and  inquire  what  has  be 
come  of  these  gentlemen,  where  they 
have  found  themselves  at  last,  under  the 
power  which  they  thus  helped  to  estab 
lish,  what  has  become  now  of  all  their 
respect,  trust,  confidence,  and  attach 
ment,  —  how  many  of  them,  indeed,  have 
not  escaped  from  being  broken  and 
crushed  under  the  weight  of  the  wheels 
of  that  engine  which  they  themselves 
set  in  motion,  —  I  feel  that  an  edifying 
lesson  may  be  read  by  those  who,  in  the 
freshness  and  fulness  of  party  zeal,  are 
ready  to  confer  the  most  dangerous  pow 
er,  in  the  hope  that  they  and  their  friends 
may  bask  in  its  sunshine,  while  enemies 
only  shall  be  withered  by  its  frown. 

I  will  not  go  into  the  mention  of 
names.  I  will  give  no  enumeration  of 
persons;  but  I  ask  you  to  turn  your 
minds  back,  and  recollect  who  the  dis 
tinguished  men  were  who  supported,  in 
the  Senate,  General  Jackson's  adminis 
tration  for  the  first  two  years;  and  I 
will  ask  you  what  you  suppose  they 
think  now  of  that  power  and  that  dis 
cretion  which  they  so  freely  confided  to 
executive  hands.  What  do  they  think 
of  the.  whole  career  of  that  administra 
tion,  the  commencement  of  which,  and 
indeed  the  existence  of  which,  owed  so 
much  to  their  own  great  exertions? 

In  addition  to  the  establishment  of 
this  power  of  unlimited  and  causeless 
removal,  another  doctrine  has  been  put 
forth,  more  vague,  it  is  true,  but  alto 
gether  unconstitutional,  and  tending  to 
like  dangerous  results.  In  some  loose, 


indefinite,  and  unknown  sense,  the 
President  has  been  called  the  representa 
tive  of^the  whole  American  people.  He 
has  called  himself  so  repeatedly,  and 
been  so  denominated  by  his  friends  a 
thousand  times.  Acts,  for  which  no 
specific  authority  has  been  found  either 
in  the  Constitution  or  the  laws,  have 
been  justified  on  the  ground  that  the 
President  is  the  representative  of  the 
whole  American  people.  Certainly,  this 
is  not  constitutional  language.  Cer 
tainly,  the  Constitution  nowhere  calls 
the  President  the  universal  representa 
tive  of  the  people.  The  constitutional 
representatives  of  the  people  are  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  exercising 
powers  of  legislation.  The  President  is 
an  executive  officer,  appointed  in  a  par 
ticular  manner,  and  clothed  with  pre 
scribed  and  limited  powers.  It  may  be 
thought  to  be  of  no  great  consequence, 
that  the  President  should  call  himself, 
or  that  others  should  call  him,  the  sole 
representative  of  all  the  people,  although 
he  has  no  such  appellation  or  character 
in  the  Constitution.  But,  in  these  mat 
ters,  words  are  things.  If  he  is  the 
people's  representative,  and  as  such  may 
exercise  power,  without  any  other  grant, 
what  is  the  limit  to  that  power?  And 
what  may  not  an  unlimited  representa 
tive  of  the  people  do?  When  the  Consti 
tution  expressly  creates  representatives, 
as  members  of  Congress,  it  regulates, 
defines,  and  limits  their  authority.  But 
if  the  executive  chief  magistrate,  merely 
because  he  is  the  executive  chief  magis 
trate,  may  assume  to  himself  another 
character,  and  call  himself  the  repre 
sentative  of  the  whole  people,  what  is  to 
limit  or  restrain  this  representative  pow 
er  in  his  hands? 

I  fear,  Gentlemen,  that  if  these  pre 
tensions  should  be  continued  and  justi 
fied,  we  might  have  many  instances  of 
summary  political  logic,  such  as  I  once 
heard  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
A  gentleman,  not  now  living,  wished 
very  much  to  vote  for  the  establishment 
of  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  but  he 
had  always  stoutly  denied  the  constitu 
tional  power  of  Congress  to  create  such 
a  bank.  The  country,  however,  was  in 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


433 


a  state  of  great  financial  distress,  from 
which  such  an  institution,  it  was  hoped, 
might  help  to  extricate  it ;  and  this  con 
sideration  led  the  worthy  member  to  re 
view  his  opinions  with  care  and  delib 
eration.  Happily,  on  such  careful  and 
deliberate  review,  he  altered  his  former 
judgment.  He  came,  satisfactorily,  to 
the  conclusion  that  Congress  might  in 
corporate  a  bank.  The  argument  which 
brought  his  mind  to  this  result  was 
short,  and  so  plain  and  obvious,  that 
he  wondered  how  he  should  so  long  have 
overlooked  it.  The  power,  he  said,  to 
create  a  bank,  was  either  given  to  Con 
gress,  or  it  was  not  given.  Very  well. 
If  it  was  given,  Congress  of  course  could 
exercise  it;  if  it  was  not  given,  the  peo 
ple  still  retained  it,  and  in  that  case, 
Congress,  as  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  might,  upon  an  emergency,  make 
free  to  use  it. 

Arguments  and  conclusions  in  sub 
stance  like  these,  Gentlemen,  will  not 
be  wanting,  if  men  of  great  popularity, 
commanding  characters,  sustained  by 
powerful  parties,  and  full  of  good  inten 
tions  towards  the  public,  may  be  permitted 
to  call  themselves  the  universal  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people. 

But,  Gentlemen,  it  is  the  currency, 
the  currency  of  the  country,  — it  is  this 
great  subject,  so  interesting,  so  vital,  to 
all  classes  of  the  community,  which  has 
been  destined  to  feel  the  most  violent 
assaults  of  executive  power.  The  con 
sequences  are  around  us  and  upon  us. 
Not  unforeseen,  not  unforetold,  here 
they  come,  bringing  distress  for  the 
present,  and  fear  and  alarm  for  the 
future.  If  it  be  denied  that  the  pres 
ent  condition  of  things  has  arisen  from 
the  President's  interference  with  the 
revenue,  the  first  answer  is,  that,  when 
he  did  interfere,  just  such  consequences 
were  predicted.  It  was  then  said,  and 
repeated,  and  pressed  upon  the  public 
attention,  that  that  interference  must 
necessarily  produce  derangement,  em 
barrassment,  loss  of  confidence,  and 
commercial  distress.  I  pray  you,  Gen 
tlemen,  to  recur  to  the  debates  of  1832, 
1833,  and  1834,  and  then  to  decide 
whose  opinions  have  proved  to  be  cor 


rect.  When  the  treasury  experiment 
was  first  announced,  who  supported, 
and  who  opposed  it?  Who  warned  the 
country  against  it?  Who  were  they  who 
endeavored  to  stay  the  violence  of  party, 
to  arrest  the  hand  of  executive  author 
ity,  and  to  convince  the  people  that  this 
experiment  was  delusive ;  that  its  object 
was  merely  to  increase  executive  power, 
and  that  its  effect,  sooner  or  later,  must 
be  injurious  and  ruinous?  Gentlemen, 
it  is  fair  to  bring  the  opinions  of  politi 
cal  men  to  the  test  of  experience.  It  is 
just  to  judge  of  them  by  their  measures, 
and  their  opposition  to  measures;  and 
for  myself,  and  those  political  friends 
with  whom  I  have  acted,  on  this  subject 
of  the  currency,  I  am  ready  to  abide  the 
test. 

But  before  the  subject  of  the  curren 
cy,  and  its  present  most  embarrassing 
state,  is  discussed,  I  invite  your  atten 
tion,  Gentlemen,  to  the  history  of  execu 
tive  proceedings  connected  with  it.  I 
propose  to  state  to  you  a  series  of  facts; 
not  to  argue  upon  them,  not  to  mystify 
them,  nor  to  draw  any  unjust  inference 
from  them ;  but  merely  to  state  the  case, 
in  the  plainest  manner,  as  I  understand 
it.  And  I  wish,  Gentlemen,  that,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  do  this  in  the  best 
and  most  convincing  manner,  I  had  the 
ability  of  my  learned  friend,  (Mr.  Og- 
den,)  whom  you  have  all  so  often  heard, 
and  who  usually  states  his  case  in  such 
a  manner  that,  when  stated,  it  is  already 
very  well  argued. 

Let  us  see,  Gentlemen,  what  the  train 
of  occurrences  has  been  in  regard  to  our 
revenue  and  finances;  and  when  these 
occurrences  are  stated,  I  leave  to  every 
man  the  right  to  decide  for  himself 
whether  our  present  difficulties  have  or 
have  not  arisen  from  attempts  to  extend 
the  executive  authority.  In  giving  this 
detail,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  speak  of 
the  late  Bank  of  the  United  States ;  but 
I  shall  speak  of  it  historically  only.  My 
opinion  of  its  utility,  and  of  the  extraor 
dinary  ability  and  success  with  which  its 
affairs  were  conducted  for  many  years 
before  the  termination  of  its  charter,  is 
well  known.  I  have  often  expressed  it, 
and  I  have  not  altered  it.  But  at  pres- 


28 


434 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


ent  I  speak  of  the  bank  only  as  it  makes 
a  necessary  part  in  the  history  of  events 
which  I  wish  now  to  recapitulate. 

Mr.  Adams  commenced  his  adminis 
tration  in  March,  1825.  He  had  been 
elected  by  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  began  his  career  as  President  under 
a  powerful  opposition .  From  the  very 
first  day,  he  was  warmly,  even  violently, 
opposed  in  all  his  measures;  and  this 
opposition,  as  we  all  know,  continued 
without  abatement,  either  in  force  or 
asperity,  through  his  whole  term  of  four 
years.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not  about  to 
say  whether  this  opposition  was  well  or 
ill.  founded,  just  or  unjust.  I  only  state 
the  fact  as  connected  with  other  facts. 
The  Bank  of  the  United  States,  during 
these  four  years  of  Mr.  Adams's  admin 
istration,  was  in  full  operation.  It  was 
performing  the  fiscal  duties  enjoined  on 
it  by  its  charter  ;  it  had  established 
numerous  offices,  was  maintaining  a 
large  circulation,  and  transacting  a  vast 
business  in  exchange.  Its  character, 
conduct,  and  mariner  of  administra 
tion  were  all  well  known  to  the  whole 
country. 

Now  there  are  two  or  three  things 
worthy  of  especial  notice.  One  is,  that 
during  the  whole  of  this  heated  politi 
cal  controversy,  from  1825  to  1829,  the 
party  which  was  endeavoring  to  produce 
a  change  of  administration  in  the  gen 
eral  government  brought  no  charge  of 
political  interference  against  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  If  any  thing,  it 
was  rather  a  favorite  with  that  party 
generally.  Certainly,  the  party,  as  a 
party,  did  not  ascribe  to  it  undue  at 
tachment  to  other  parties,  or  to  the  then 
existing  administration.  Another  im 
portant  fact  is,  that,  during  the  whole 
of  the  same  period,  those  who  had  es 
poused  the  cause  of  General  Jackson, 
and  who  sought  to  bring  about  a  revo 
lution  under  his  name,  did  not  propose 
the  destruction  of  the  bank,  or  its  dis 
continuance,  as  one  of  the  objects  which 
were  to  be  accomplished  by  the  intended 
revolution.  They  did  not  tell  the  coun 
try  that  the  bank  was  unconstitutional ; 
they  did  not  declare  .it  unnecessary; 
they  did  not  propose  to  get  along  with 


out  it,  when  they  should  come  into 
power  themselves.  If  individuals  eii- 
tertain^d  any  such  purposes,  they  kept 
them  much  to  themselves.  The  party, 
as  a  party,  avowed  none  such.  A  third 
fact,  worthy  of  all  notice,  is,  that  dur 
ing  this  period  there  was  no  complaint 
about  the  state  of  the  currency,  either 
by  the  country  generally  or  by  the  party 
then  in  opposition. 

In  March,  1829,  General  Jackson  was 
inaugurated  as  President.  lie  came 
into  power  on  professions  of  reform. 
He  announced  reform  of  all  abuses  to 
be  the  great  and  leading  object  of  his 
future  administration;  and  in  his  in 
augural  address  he  pointed  out  the  main 
subjects  of  this  reform.  But  the  bank 
was  not  one  of  them.  It  was  not  said 
by  him  that  the  bank  was  unconstitu 
tional.  It  was  not  said  that  it  was  un 
necessary  or  useless.  It  was  not  said 
that  it  had  failed  to  do  all  that  had  been 
hoped  or  expected  from  it  in  regard  to 
the  currency. 

In  March,  1829,  then,  the  bank  stood 
well,  very  well,  with  the  new  adminis 
tration.  It  was  regarded,  so  far  as  ap 
pears,  as  entirely  constitutional,  free 
from  political  or  party  taint,  and  highly 
useful.  It  had  as  yet  found  no  place  in 
the  catalogue  of  abuses  to  be  reformed. 

But,  Gentlemen,  nine  months  wrought 
a  wonderful  change.  New  lights  broke 
forth  before  these  months  had  rolled 
away;  and  the  President,  in  his  mes 
sage  to  Congress  in  December,  1829, 
held  a  very  unaccustomed  language  and 
manifested  very  unexpected  purposes. 

Although  the  bank  had  then  five  or 
six  years  of  its  charter  unexpired,  he 
yet  called  the  attention  of  Congress 
very  pointedly  to  the  subject,  and  de 
clared,  — 

1.  That  the  constitutionality  of   the 
bank  was  well  doubted  by  many; 

2.  That  its  utility  or  expediency  was 
also  well  doubted; 

3.  That  all  must  admit  that  it  had 
failed  to  establish  or  maintain  a  sound 
and  uniform  currency;  and 

4.  That  the  true  bank  for  the  use  of 
the   government  of   the   United   States 
would    be    a    bank    which    should    be 


RECEPTION   AT   NEW   YORK. 


435 


founded  on  the  revenues  and  credit  of 
the  government  itself. 

These  propositions  appeared  to  me, 
pt  the  time,  as  very  extraordinary,  and 
the  last  one  as  very  startling.  A  bank 
founded  on  the  revenue  and  credit  of 
the  government,  and  managed  and  ad 
ministered  by  the  executive,  was  a  con 
ception  which  I  had  supposed  no  man 
holding  the  chief  executive  power  in 
his  own  hands  would  venture  to  put 
forth. 

But  the  question  now  is,  what  had 
wrought  this  great  change  of  feeling  and 
of  purpose  in  regard  to  the  bank.  What 
events  had  occurred  between  March  and 
December  that  should  have  caused  the 
bank,  so  constitutional,  so  useful,  so 
peaceful,  and  so  safe  an  institution,  in 
the  first  of  these  months,  to  start  up 
into  the  character  of  a  monster,  and 
become  so  horrid  and  dangerous,  in  the 
last? 

Gentlemen,  let  us  see  what  the  events 
were  which  had  intervened.  General 
Jackson  was  elected  in  December,  1828. 
His  term  was  to  begin  in  March,  1829. 
A  session  of  Congress  took  place,  there 
fore,  between  his  election  and  the  com 
mencement  of  his  administration. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  the  truth  is,  that 
during  this  session,  and  a  little  before 
the  commencement  of  the  new  adminis 
tration,  a  disposition  was  manifested 
by  political  men  to  interfere  with  the 
management  of  the  bank.  Members  of 
Congress  undertook  to  nominate  or  rec 
ommend  individuals  as  directors  in  the 
branches  or  offices  of  the  bank.  They 
were  kind  enough,  sometimes,  to  make 
out  whole  lists,  or  tickets,  and  to  send 
them  to  Philadelphia,  containing  the 
names  of  those  whose  appointments 
would  be  satisfactory  to  General  Jack 
son's  friends.  Portions  of  the  corre 
spondence  on  these  subjects  have  been 
published  in  some  of  the  voluminous 
reports  and  other  documents  connected 
with  the  bank,  but  perhaps  have  not 
been  generally  heeded  or  noticed.  At 
first,  the  bank  merely  declined,  as  gently 
as  possible,  complying  with  these  and 
•similar  requests.  But  like  applications 
began  to  show  themselves  from  many 


quarters,  and  a  very  marked  case  arose 
as  early  as  June,  1829.  Certain  mem 
bers  of  the  Legislature  of  New  Hamp 
shire  applied  for  a  change  in  the 
presidency  of  the  branch  which  was 
established  in  that  State.  A  member 
of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  wrote 
both  to  the  president  of  the  bank  and 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  strong 
ly  recommending  a  change,  and  in  his 
letter  to  the  Secretary  hinting  very  dis 
tinctly  at  political  considerations  as  the 
ground  of  the  movement.  Other  officers 
in  the  service  of  the  government  took 
an  interest  in  the  matter,  and  urged  a 
change;  and  the  Secretary  himself  wrote 
to  the  bank,  suggesting  and  recommend 
ing  it.  The  time  had  come,  then,  for 
the  bank  to  take  its  position.  It  did 
take  it;  and,  in  my  judgment,  if  it  had 
not  acted  as  it  did  act,  not  only  would 
those  who  had  the  care  of  it  have  been 
most  highly  censurable,  but  a  claim 
would  have  been  yielded  to,  entirely  in 
consistent  with  a  government  of  laws, 
and  subversive  of  the  very  foundations 
of  republicanism.' 

A  long  correspondence  between  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  presi 
dent  of  the  bank  ensued.  The  directors 
determined  that  they  would  not  surren 
der  either  their  rights  or  their  duties  to 
the  control  or  supervision  of  the  ex 
ecutive  government.  They  said  they 
had  never  appointed  directors  of  their 
branches  on  political  grounds,  and  they 
would  not  remove  them  on  such  grounds. 
They  had  avoided  politics.  They  had 
sought  for  men  of  business,  capacity, 
fidelity,  and  experience  in  the  manage 
ment  of  pecuniary  concerns.  They  owed 
duties,  they  said,  to  the  government, 
which  they  meant  to  perform,  faithfully 
and  impartially,  under  all  administra 
tions  ;  and  they  owed  duties  to  the  stock 
holders  of  the  bank,  which  required 
them  to  disregard  political  considera 
tions  in  their  appointments.  This  cor 
respondence  ran  along  into  the  fall  of 
the  year,  and  finally  terminated  in  a 
stern  and  unanimous  declaration,  made 
by  the  directors,  and  transmitted  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  that  the  bank 
would  continue  to  be  independently 


436 


RECEPTION   AT   NEW  YORK. 


administered,  and  that  the  directors 
once  for  all  refused  to  submit  to  the  su 
pervision  of  the  executive  authority,  in 
any  of  its  branches,  in  the  appointment 
of  local  directors  and  agents.  This  res 
olution  decided  the  character  of  the 
future.  Hostility  towards  the  bank, 
thenceforward,  became  the  settled  policy 
of  the  government;  and  the  message  of 
December,  1829,  was  the  clear  announce 
ment  of  that  policy.  If  the  bank  had 
appointed  those  directors,  thus  recom 
mended  by  members  of  Congress;  if  it 
had  submitted  all  its  appointments  to 
the  supervision  of  the  treasury;  if  it 
had  removed  the  president  of  the  New 
Hampshire  branch;  if  it  had,  in  all 
things,  showed  itself  a  complying,  po 
litical,  party  machine,  instead  of  an 
independent  institution; — if  it  had 
done  this,  I  leave  all  men  to  judge 
whether  such  an  entire  change  of  opin 
ion,  as  to  its  constitutionality,  its  utility, 
and  its  good  effects  on  the  currency, 
would  have  happened  between  March 
and  December. 

From  the  moment  in  which  the  bank 
asserted  its  independence  of  treasury 
control,  and  its  elevation  above  mere 
party  purposes,  down  to  the  end  of  its 
charter,  and  down  even  to  the  present 
day,  it  has  been  the  subject  to  which  the 
selectest  phrases  of  party  denunciation 
have  been  plentifully  applied. 

But  Congress  manifested  no  disposi 
tion  to  establish  a  treasury  bank.  On 
the  contrary,  it  was  satisfied,  and  so  was 
the  country,  most  unquestionably,  with 
the  bank  then  existing.  In  the  sum 
mer  of  1832,  Congress  passed  an  act  for 
continuing  the  charter  of  the  bank,  by 
strong  majorities  in  both  houses.  In 
the  House  of  Representatives,  I  think, 
two  thirds  of  the  members  voted  for  the 
bill.  The  President  gave  it  his  nega 
tive  ;  and  as  there  were  not  two  thirds  of 
the  Senate,  though  a  large  majority  were 
for  it,  the  bill  failed  to  become  a  law. 

But  it  was  not  enough  that  a  contin 
uance  of  the  charter  of  the  bank  was 
thus  refused.  It  had  the  deposit  of  the 
public  money,  and  this  it  was  entitled 
to,  by  law,  for  the  few  years  which  yet 
remained  of  its  chartered  term.  But 


this  it  was  determined  it  should  not 
continue  to  enjoy.  At  the  commence 
ment  oi  the  session  of  1832-33,  a  grave 
and  sober  doubt  was  expressed  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  offi 
cial  communication,  whether  the  public 
moneys  were  safe  in  the  custody  of  the 
bank!  I  confess,  Gentlemen,  when  I 
look  back  to  this  suggestion,  thus  offi 
cially  made,  so  serious  in  its  import, 
so  unjusc,  if  not  well  founded,  and  so 
greatly  injurious  to  the  credit  of  the 
bank,  and  injurious,  indeed,  to  the  credit 
of  the  whole  country,  I  cannot  but  won 
der  that  any  man  of  intelligence  and  char 
acter  should  have  been  willing  to  make 
it.  I  read  in  it,  however,  the  first  lines 
of  another  chapter.  I  saw  an  attempt 
was  now  to  be  made  to  remove  the  de 
posits  of  the  public  money  from  the 
bank,  and  such  an  attempt  was  made 
that  very  session.  But  Congress  was 
not  to  be  prevailed  upon  to  accomplish 
the  end  by  its  own  authority.  It  was 
well  ascertained  that  neither  house  would 
consent  to  it.  The  House  of  Represent 
atives,  indeed,  at  the  heel  of  the  ses 
sion,  decided  against  the  proposition  by 
a  very  large  majority. 

The  legislative  authority  having  been 
thus  invoked,  and  invoked  in  vain,  it 
was  resolved  to  stretch  farther  the  long 
arm  of  executive  power,  and  by  that 
arm  to  reach  and  strike  the  victim.  It 
so  happened  that  I  was  in  this  city  in 
May,  1833,  and  here  learned,  from  a 
very  authentic  source,  that  the  deposits 
would  be  removed  by  the  President's 
order;  and  in  June,  as  afterwards  ap 
peared,  that  order  was  given. 

Now  it  is  obvious,  Gentlemen,  that 
thus  far  the  changes  in  our  financial  and 
fiscal  system  were  effected,  not  by  Con 
gress,  but  by  the  executive;  not  by  law, 
but  by  the  will  and  the  power  of  the 
President.  Congress  would  have  con 
tinued  the  charter  of  the  bank ;  but  the 
President  negatived  the  bill.  Congress 
was  of  opinion  that  the  deposits  ought 
not  to  be  removed;  but  the  President 
removed  them.  Nor  was  this  all.  The 
public  moneys  being  withdrawn  from 
the  custody  which  the  law  had  provided, 
by  executive  power  alone,  that  same 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK. 


437 


power  selected  the  places  for  their  fu 
ture  keeping.  Particular  banks,  exist 
ing  under  State  charters,  were  chosen. 
With  these  especial  and  particular  ar 
rangements  were  made,  and  the  public 
moneys  were  deposited  in  their  vaults. 
Henceforward  these  selected  banks  were 
to  operate  on  the  revenue  and  credit  of 
the  government;  and  thus  the  original 
scheme,  promulgated  in  the  annual  mes 
sage  of  December,  1829,  was  substan 
tially  carried  into  effect.  Here  were 
banks  chosen  by  the  treasury;  all  the 
arrangements  with  them  made  by  the 
treasury ;  a  set  of  duties  to  be  performed 
by  them  to  the  treasury  prescribed ;  and 
these  banks  were  to  hold  the  whole  pro 
ceeds  of  the  public  revenue.  In  all  this, 
Congress  had  neither  part  nor  lot.  No 
law  had  caused  the  removal  of  the  de 
posits  ;  no  law  had  authorized  the  selec 
tion  of  deposit  State  banks ;  no  law  had 
prescribed  the  terms  on  which  the  rev 
enues  should  be  placed  in  such  banks. 
From  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  to 
the  end,  it  was  all  executive  edict.  And 
now,  Gentlemen,  I  ask  if  it  be  not  most 
remarkable,  that,  in  a  country  professing 
to  be  under  a  government  of  laws,  such 
great  and  important  changes  in  one  of 
its  most  essential  and  vital  interests 
should  be  brought  about  without  any 
change  of  law,  without  any  enactment 
of  the  legislature  whatever  ?  Is  such  a 
power  trusted  to  the  executive  of  any 
government  in  which  the  executive  is 
separated,  by  clear  and  well-defined 
lines,  from  the  legislative  department  ? 
The  currency  of  the  country  stands  on 
the  same  general  ground  as  the  com 
merce  of  the  country.  Both  are  inti 
mately  connected,  and  both  are  subjects 
of  legal,  not  of  executive,  regulation. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  writers 
of  the  Federalist,  in  discussing  the  pow 
ers  which  the  Constitution  conferred  on 
the  President,  made  it  matter  of  com 
mendation,  that  it  withdraws  this  sub 
ject  altogether  from  his  grasp.  "  He 
can  prescribe  no  rules,"  say  they,  "  con 
cerning  the  commerce  or  currency  of  the 
country."  And  so  we  have  been  all 
taught  to  think,  under  all  former  ad 
ministrations.  But  we  have  now  seen 


that  the  President,  and  the  President 
alone,  does  prescribe  the  rule  concern 
ing  the  currency.  He  makes  it,  and  he 
alters  it.  He  makes  one  rule  for  one 
branch  of  the  revenue,  and  another  rule 
for  another.  lie  makes  one  rule  for  the 
citizen  of  one  State,  and  another  for  the 
citizen  of  another  State.  This,  it  is  cer 
tain,  is  one  part  of  the  treasury  order  of 
July  last. 

But  at  last  Congress  interfered,  and 
undertook  to  regulate  the  deposits  of 
the  public  moneys.  It  passed  the  law 
of  July,  1836,  placing  the  subject  under 
legal  control,  restraining  the  power  of 
the  executive,  subjecting  the  banks  to 
liabilities  and  duties,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  securing  them  against  executive  fa 
voritism,  on  the  other.  But  this  law 
contained  another  important  provision ; 
which  was,  that  all  the  money  in  the 
treasury,  beyond  what  was  necessary  for 
the  current  expenditures  of  the  govern 
ment,  should  be  deposited  with  the 
States.  This  measure  passed  both  houses 
by  very  unusual  majorities,  yet  it  hardly 
escaped  a  veto.  It  obtained  only  a  cold 
assent,  a  slow,  reluctant,  and  hesitating 
approval;  and  an  early  moment  was 
seized  to  array  against  it  a  long  list  of 
objections.  But  the  law  passed.  The 
money  in  the  treasury  beyond  the  sum 
of  five  millions  was  to  go  to  the  States. 
It  has  so  gone,  and  the  treasury  for  the 
present  is  relieved  from  the  burden  of  a 
surplus.  But  now  observe  other  coinci 
dences.  In  the  annual  message  of  De 
cember,  1835,  the  President  quoted  the 
fact  of  the  rapidly  increasing  sale  of  the 
public  lands  as  proof  of  high  national 
prosperity.  He  alluded  to  that  subject, 
certainly  with  much  satisfaction,  and 
apparently  in  something  of  the  tone 
of  exultation.  There  was  nothing  said 
about  monopoly,  not  a  word  about  spec 
ulation,  not  a  word  about  over-issues  of 
paper,  to  pay  for  the  lands.  All  was 
prosperous,  all  was  full  of  evidence  of  a 
wise  administration  of  government,  all 
was  joy  and  triumph. 

But  the  idea  of  a  deposit  or  distribu 
tion  of  the  surplus  money  with  the  peo 
ple  suddenly  damped  this  effervescing 
happiness.  The  color  of  the  rose  was 


438 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK. 


gone,  and  every  thing  now  looked  gloomy 
and  black.  Now  no  more  felicitation  or 
congratulation,  on  account  of  the  rapid 
sales  of  the  public  lands;  no  more  of 
tli is  most  decisive  proof  of  national  pros 
perity  and  happiness.  The  executive 
Muse  takes  up  a  melancholy  strain.  She 
sings  of  monopolies,  of  speculation,  of 
worthless  paper,  of  loss  both  of  land  and 
money,  of  the  multiplication  of  banks, 
and  the  danger  of  paper  issues;  and  the 
end  of  the  canto,  the  catastrophe,  is, 
that  lands  shall  no  longer  be  sold  but 
for  gold  and  silver  alone.  The  object 
of  all  this  is  clear  enough.  It  was  to 
diminish  the  income  from  the  public 
lands.  No  desire  for  such  a  diminution 
had  been  manifested,  so  long  as  the 
money  was  supposed  to  be  likely  to  re 
main  in  the  treasury.  But  a  growing 
conviction  that  some  other  disposition 
must  be  made  of  the  surplus,  awakened 
attention  to  the  means  of  preventing 
that  surplus. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  last  session, 
Gentlemen,  a  proposition  was  brought 
forward  in  Congress  for  such  an  altera 
tion  of  the  law  as  should  admit  payment 
for  public  lands  to  be  made  in  nothing 
but  gold  and  silver.  The  mover  voted 
for  his  own  proposition;  but  I  do  not 
recollect  that  any  other  member  con 
curred  in  the  vote.  The  proposition 
was  rejected  at  once;  but,  as  in  other 
cases,  that  which  Congress  refused  to  do, 
the  executive  power  did.  Ten  days  after 
Congress  adjourned,  having  had  this  mat 
ter  before  it,  and  having  refused  to  act 
upon  it  by  making  any  alteration  in  the 
existing  laws,  a  treasury  order  was  is 
sued,  commanding  that  very  thing  to  be 
done  which  Congress  had  been  requested 
and  had  refused  to  do.  Just  as  in  the 
case  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  the 
executive  power  acted  in  this  case  also 
against  the  known,  well  understood,  and 
recently  expressed  will  of  the  representa 
tives  of  the  people.  There  never  has 
been  a  moment  when  the  legislative  will 
would  have  sanctioned  the  object  of  that 
order;  probably  never  a  moment  in 
which  any  twenty  individual  members 
of  Congress  would  have  concurred  in  it. 
The  act  was  done  without  the  assent  of 


Congress,  and  against  the  well-known 
opinion  of  Congress.  That  act  altered 
the  law*of  the  land,  or  purported  to  alter 
it,  against  the  well-known  will  of  the 
law-making  power. 

For  one,  I  confess  I  see  no  authority 
whatever  in  the  Constitution,  or  in  any 
law,  for  this  treasury  order.  Those  who 
have  undertaken  to  maintain  it  have 
placed  it  on  grounds,  not  only  different, 
but  inconsistent  and  contradictory.  The 
reason  which  one  gives,  another  rejects: 
one  confutes  what  another  argues.  With 
one  it  is  the  joint  resolution  of  1816 
which  gave  the  authority;  with  another, 
it  is  the  law  of  1820;  with  a  third,  it  is 
the  general  superintending  power  of  the 
President;  and  this  last  argument,  since 
it  resolves  itself  into  mere  power,  with 
out  stopping  to  rjoint  out  the  sources  of 
that  power,  is  not  only  the  shortest,  but 
in  truth  the  most  just,  lie  is  the  most 
sensible,  as  well  as  the  most  candid  rea- 
soner,  in  my  opinion,  who  places  this 
treasury  order  on  the  ground  of  the  pleas 
ure  of  the  executive,  and  stops  there.  I 
regard  the  joint  resolution  of  1816  as 
mandatory;  as  prescribing  a  legal  rule; 
as  putting  this  subject,  in  which  all  have 
so  deep  an  interest,  beyond  the  caprice, 
or  the  arbitrary  pleasure,  or  the  discre 
tion,  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
I  believe  there  is  not  the  slightest  legal 
authority,  either  in  that  officer  or  in  the 
President,  to  make  a  distinction,  and  to 
say  that  paper  may  be  received  for  debts 
at  the  custom-house,  but  that  gold  and 
silver  only  shall  be  received  at  the  land 
offices.  And  now  for  the  sequel. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  last  ses 
sion,  as  you  know,  Gentlemen,  a  resolu 
tion  was  brought  forward  in  the  Senate 
for  annulling  and  abrogating  this  order, 
by  Mr.  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  a  gentleman  of 
much  intelligence,  of  sound  principles, 
of  vigorous  and  energetic  character, 
whose  loss  from  the  service  of  the  coun 
try  I  regard  as  a  public  misfortune.  The 
Whig  members  all  supported  this  resolu 
tion,  and  all  the  members,  I  believe, 
with  the  exception  of  some  five  or  six, 
were  very  anxious  in  some  way  to  get 
rid  of  the  treasury  order.  But  Mr.  Ew- 
ing's  resolution  was  too  direct.  It  was 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK. 


439 


deemed  a  pointed  and  ungracious  attack 
on  executive  policy.  It  must  therefore 
be  softened,  modified,  qualified,  made  to 
sound  less  harsh  to  the  ears  of  men  in 
power,  and  to  assume  a  plausible,  pol 
ished,  inoffensive  character.  It  was  ac 
cordingly -put  into  the  plastic  hands  of 
friends  of  the  executive  to  be  moulded 
and  fashioned,  so  that  it  might  have  the 
effect  of  ridding  the  country  of  the  ob 
noxious  order,  and  yet  not  appear  to 
question  executive  infallibility.  All  this 
did  not  answer.  The  late  President  is 
not  a  man  to  be  satisfied  with  soft 
words;  and  he  saw  in  the  measure, 
even  as  it  passed  the  two  houses,  a  sub 
stantial  repeal  of  the  order.  He  is  a 
man  of  boldness  and  decision;  and  he 
respects  boldness  and  decision  in  others. 
If  you  are  his  friend,  ,he  expects  no 
flinching;  and  if  you  are  his  adversary, 
he  respects  you  none  the  less  for  carry 
ing  your  opposition  to  the  full  limits  of 
honorable  warfare.  Gentlemen,  I  most 
sincerely  regret  the  course  of  the  Presi 
dent  in  regard  to  this  bill,  and  certainly 
most  highly  disapprove  it.  But  I  do 
not  suffer  the  mortification  of  having 
attempted  to  disguise  and  garnish  it,  in 
order  to  make  it  acceptable,  and  of  still 
finding  it  thrown  back  in  my  face.  All 
that  was  obtained  by  this  ingenious, 
diplomatic,  and  over-courteous  mode  of 
enacting  a  law,  was  a  response  from 
the  President  and  the  Attorney- General, 
that  the  bill  in  question  was  obscure,  ill 
penned,  and  not  easy  to  be  understood. 
The  bill,  therefore,  was  neither  ap 
proved  nor  negatived.  If  it  had  been 
approved,  the  treasury  order  would  have 
been  annulled,  though  in  a  clumsy  and 
objectionable  manner.  If  it  had  been 
negatived,  and  returned  to  Congress,  no 
doubt  it  would  have  been  passed  by  two 
thirds  of  both  houses,  and  in  that  way 
have  become  a  law,  and  abrogated  the 
order.  But  it  was  not  approved,  it  was 
not  returned;  it  was  retained.  It  had 
passed  the  Senate  in  season ;  it  had  been 
sent  to  the  House  in  season ;  but  there  it 
was  suffered  to  lie  so  long  without  being 
called  up,  that  it  was  completely  in  the 
power  of  the  President  when  it  finally 
passed  that  body ;  since  he  is  not  obliged 


to  return  bills  which  he  does  not  ap 
prove,  if  not  presented  to  him  ten  days 
before  the  end  of  the  session.  The  bill 
was  lost,  therefore,  and  the  treasury 
order  remains  in  force.  Here  again  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  in  both 
houses  of  Congress,  by  majorities  almost 
unprecedented,  endeavored  to  abolish 
this  obnoxious  order.  On  hardly  any 
subject,  indeed,  has  opinion  been  so 
unanimous,  either  in  or  out  of  Congress. 
Yet  the  order  remains. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  I  ask  you,  and 
I  ask  all  men  who  have  not  voluntarily 
surrendered  all  power  and  all  right  of 
thinking  for  themselves,  whether,  from 
1832  to  the  present  moment,  the  execu 
tive  authority  has  not  effectually  super 
seded  the  power  of  Congress,  thwarted 
the  will  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  and  even  of  the  people  them 
selves,  and  taken  the  whole  subject  of 
the  currency  into  its  own  grasp?  In 
1832,  Congress  desired  to  continue  the 
bank  of  the  United  States,  and  a  major 
ity  of  the  people  desired  it  also ;  but  the 
President  opposed  it,  and  his  will  pre 
vailed.  In  1833,  Congress  refused  to 
remove  the  deposits;  the  President  re 
solved  upon  it,  however,  and  his  will 
prevailed.  Congress  has  never  been 
willing  to  make  a  bank  founded  on  the 
money  and  credit  of  the  government, 
and  administered,  of  course,  by  execu 
tive  hands ;  but  this  was  the  President's 
object,  and  he  attained  it,  in  a  great 
measure,  by  the  treasury  selection  of  de 
posit  banks.  In  this  particular,  there 
fore,  to  a  great  extent,  his  will  prevailed. 
In  1836,  Congress  refused  to  confine  the 
receipts  for  public  lands  to  gold  and 
silver;  but  the  President  willed  it,  and 
his  will  prevailed.  In  1837,  both  houses 
of  Congress,  by  more  than  two  thirds, 
passed  a  bill  for  restoring  the  former 
state  of  things  by  annulling  the  treasury 
order;  but  the  President  willed,  notwith 
standing,  that  the  order  should  remain 
in  force,  and  his  will  again  prevailed. 
I  repeat  the  question,  therefore,  and  I 
would  put  it  earnestly  to  every  intelli 
gent  man,  to  every  lover  of  our  constitu 
tional  liberty,  are  we  under  the  dominion 
of  the  law?  or  has  the  effectual  govern- 


440 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


ment  of  the  country,  at  least  in  all  that 
regards  the  great  interest  of  the  cur 
rency,  been  in  a  single  hand? 

Gentlemen,  I  have  done  with  the  nar 
rative  of  events  and  measures.  I  have 
done  with  the  history  of  these  successive 
steps,  in  the  progress  of  executive  power, 
towards  a  complete  control  over  the  rev 
enue  and  the  currency.  The  result  is 
now  all  before  us.  These  pretended  re 
forms,  these  extraordinary  exercises  of 
power  from  an  extraordinary  zeal  for 
the  good  of  the  people,  what  have  they 
brought  us  to? 

In  1829,  the  currency  was  declared  to 
be  neither  sound  nor  uniform;  a  proposi 
tion,  in  my  judgment,  altogether  at  vari 
ance  with  the  fact,  because  I  do  not  be 
lieve  there  ever  was  a  country  of  equal 
extent,  in  which  paper  formed  any  part 
of  the  circulation,  that  possessed  a  cur 
rency  so  sound,  so  uniform,  so  conven 
ient,  and  so  perfect  in  all  respects,  as  the 
currency  of  this  country,  at  the  moment 
of  the  delivery  of  that  message,  in  1829. 

But  how  is  it  now?  Where  has  the 
improvement  brought  it?  What  has  re 
form  done?  What  has  the  great  cry  for 
hard  money  accomplished?  Is  the  cur 
rency  uniform  now?  Is  money  in  New 
Orleans  now  as  good,  or  nearly  so,  as 
money  in  New  York?  Are  exchanges  at 
par,  or  only  at  the  same  low  rates  as  in 
1829  and  other  years?  Every  one  here 
knows  that  all  the  benefits  of  this  ex 
periment  are  but  injury  and  oppression; 
all  this  reform,  but  aggravated  distress. 

And  as  to  the  soundness  of  the  cur 
rency,  how  does  that  stand?  Are  the 
causes  of  alarm  less  now  than  in  1829? 
Is  there  less  bank  paper  in  circulation? 
Is  there  less  fear  of  a  general  catastro 
phe?  Is  property  more  secure,  or  indus 
try  more  certain  of  its  reward?  We  all 
know,  Gentlemen,  that,  during  all  this 
pretended  warfare  against  all  banks, 
banks  have  vastly  increased.  Millions 
upon  millions  of  bank  paper  have  been 
added  to  the  circulation.  Everywhere, 
and  nowhere  so  much  as  where  the 
present  administration  and  its  measures 
have  been  most  zealously  supported, 
banks  have  multiplied  under  State  au 


thority,  since  the  decree  was  made  that 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States  should  be 
suft'erecUto  expire.  Look  at  Mississippi, 
Missouri,  Louisiana,  Virginia,  and  other 
States.  Do  we  not  see  that  banking 
capital  and  bank  paper  are  enormously 
increasing?  The  opposition  to  banks, 
therefore,  so  much  professed,  whether  it 
be  real  or  whether  it  be  but  pretended, 
has  not  restrained  either  their  number 
or  their  issues  of  paper.  Both  have 
vastly  increased. 

And  now  a  word  or  two,  Gentlemen, 
upon  this  hard-money  scheme,  and  the 
fancies  and  the  delusions  to  which  it  has 
given  birth.  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  sub 
ject  of  delicacy,  and  one  which  it  is  diffi 
cult  to  treat  with  sufficient  caution,  in  a 
popular  and  occasional  address  like  this. 
I  profess  to  be  a  bullionist,  in  the  usual 
and  accepted  sense  of  that  word.  I  am 
for  a  solid  specie  basis  for  our  circula 
tion,  and  for  specie  as  a  part  of  the  cir 
culation,  so  far  as  it  may  be  practicable 
and  convenient.  I  am  for  giving  no 
value  to  paper,  merely  as  paper.  I 
abhor  paper;  that  is  to  say,  irredeema 
ble  paper,  paper  that  may  not  be  con 
verted  into  gold  or  silver  at  the  will  of 
the  holder.  But  while  I  hold  to  all  this, 
I  believe,  also,  that  an  exclusive  gold 
and  silver  circulation  is  an  utter  impos 
sibility  in  the  present  state  of  this  coun 
try  and  of  the  world.  We  shall  none  of 
us  ever  see  it;  and  it  is  credulity  and 
folly,  in  my  opinion,  to  act  under  any 
such  hope  or  expectation.  The  States 
will  make  banks,  and  these  will  issue 
paper;  and  the  longer  the  government 
of  the  United  States  neglects  its  duty  in 
regard  to  measures  for  regulating  the  cur 
rency,  the  greater  will  be  the  amount  of 
bank  paper  overspreading  the  country. 
Of  this  I  entertain  not  a  particle  of  doubt. 

While  I  thus  hold  to  the  absolute  and 
indispensable  necessity  of  gold  and  sil 
ver,  as  the  foundation  of  our  circulation, 
I  yet  think  nothing  more  absurd  and  pre 
posterous,  than  unnatural  and  strained 
efforts  to  import  specie.  There  is  but 
so  much  specie  in  the  world,  and  its 
amount  cannot  be  greatly  or  suddenly 
increased.  Indeed,  there  are  reasons 
for  supposing  that  its  amount  has  re- 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


441 


cently  diminished,  by  the  quantity  used 
in  manufactures,  and  by  the  diminished 
products  of  the  mines.  The  existing 
amount  of  specie,  however,  must  sup 
port  the  paper  circulations,  and  the  sys 
tems  of  currency,  not  of  the  United 
States  only,  but  of  other  nations  also. 
One  of  its  great  uses  is  to  pass  from 
country  to  country,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  occasional  balances  in  commer 
cial  transactions.  It  always  finds  its 
way,  naturally  and  easily,  to  places 
where  it  is  needed  for  these  uses.  But 
to  take  extraordinary  pains  to  bring  it 
where  the  course  of  trade  does  not  bring 
it,  where  the  state  of  debt  and  credit 
does  not  require  it  to  be,  and  then  to 
endeavor,  by  unnecessary  and  injurious 
regulations,  treasury  orders,  accumula 
tions  at  the  mint,  and  other  contriv 
ances,  there  to  retain  it,  is  a  course  of 
policy  bordering,  as  it  appears  to  me,  on 
political  insanity.  It  is  boasted  that  we 
have  seventy-five  or  eighty  millions  of 
specie  now  in  the  country.  But  what 
more  senseless,  what  more  absurd,  than 
this  boast,  if  there  is  a  balance  against 
us  abroad,  of  which  payment  is  desired 
sooner  than  remittances  of  our  own 
products  are  likely  to  make  that  pay 
ment?  What  more  miserable  than  to 
boast  of  having  that  which  is  not  ours, 
which  belongs  to  others,  and  which  the 
convenience  of  others,  and  our  own  con 
venience  also,  require  that  they  should 
possess?  If  Boston  were  in  debt  to 
New  York,  would  it  be  wise  in  Boston, 
instead  of  paying  its  debt,  to  contrive 
all  possible  means  of  obtaining  specie 
from  the  New  York  banks,  and  hoarding 
it  at  home?  And  yet  this,  as  I  think, 
would  be  precisely  as  sensible  as  the 
course  which  the  government  of  the 
United  States  at  present  pursues.  We 
have,  beyond  all  doubt,  a  great  amount 
of  specie  in  the  country,  but  it  does  not 
answer  its  accustomed  end,  it  does  not 
perform  its  proper  duty.  It  neither  goes 
abroad  to  settle  balances  against  us,  and 
thereby  quiet  those  who  have  demands 
upon  us ;  nor  is  it  so  disposed  of  at  home 
as  to  sustain  the  circulation  to  the  extent 
which  the  circumstances  of  the  times 
require.  A  great  part  of  it  is  in  the 


Western  banks,  in  the  land  offices,  on 
the  roads  through  the  wilderness,  on  the 
passages  over  the  Lakes,  from  the  land 
offices  to  the  deposit  banks,  and  from 
the  deposit  banks  back  to  the  land  of 
fices.  Another  portion  is  in  the  hands 
of  buyers  and  sellers  of  specie ;  of  men 
in  the  West,  who  sell  land-office  money 
to  the  new  settlers  for  a  high  premium. 
Another  portion,  again,  is  kept  in  pri 
vate  hands,  to  be  used  when  circum 
stances  shall  tempt  to  the  purchase  of 
lands.  And,  Gentlemen,  I  am  inclined 
to  think,  so  loud  has  been  the  cry  about 
hard  money,  and  so  sweeping  the  de 
nunciation  of  all  paper,  that  private 
holding,  or  hoarding,  prevails  to  some 
extent  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 
These  eighty  millions  of  specie,  there 
fore,  really  do  us  little  good.  We  are 
weaker  in  our  circulation,  I  have  no 
doubt,  our  credit  is  feebler,  money  is 
scarcer  with  us,  at  this  moment,  than 
if  twenty  millions  of  this  specie  were 
shipped  to  Europe,  and  general  confi 
dence  thereby  restored. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  not  say  that  some 
degree  of  pressure  might  not  have  come 
upon  us,  if  the  treasury  order  had  not 
issued.  I  will  not  say  that  there  has 
not  been  over-trading,  and  over-produc 
tion,  and  a  too  great  expansion  of  bank 
circulation.  This  may  all  be  so,  and 
the  last-mentioned  evil,  it  was  easy  to 
foresee,  was  likely  to  happen  when  the 
United  States  discontinued  their  own 
bank.  But  what  I  do  say  is,  that,  act 
ing  upon  the  state  of  things  as  it  actu 
ally  existed,  and  is  now  actually  existing, 
the  treasury  order  has  been,  and  now  is, 
productive  of  great  distress.  It  acts 
upon  a  state  of  things  which  gives  ex 
traordinary  force  to  its  stroke,  and  ex 
traordinary  point  to  its  sting.  It  arrests 
specie,  when  the  free  use  and  circulation 
of  specie  are  most  important ;  it  cripples 
the  banks,  at  a  moment  when  the  banks 
more  than  ever  need  all  their  means. 
It  makes  the  merchant  unable  to  remit, 
when  remittance  is  necessary  for  his  own 
credit,  and  for  the  general  adjustment 
of  commercial  balances.  I  am  not  now 
discussing  the  general  question,  whether 
prices  must  not  come  down,  and  adjust 


442 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW   YORK. 


themselves  anew  to  the  amount  of  bul 
lion  existing  in  Europe  and  America. 
I  am  dealing  only  with  the  measures  of 
our  own  government  on  the  subject  of 
the  currency,  and  I  insist  that  these 
measures  have  been  most  unfortunate, 
and  most  ruinous  in  their  effects  on  the 
ordinary  means  of  our  circulation  at 
home,  and  on  our  ability  of  remittance 
abroad. 

Their  effects,  too,  on  domestic  ex 
changes,  by  deranging  and  misplacing 
the  specie  which  is  in  the  country,  are 
most  disastrous.  Let  him  who  has  lent 
an  ear  to  all  these  promises  of  a  more 
uniform  currency  see  how  he  can  now 
sell  his  draft  on  New  Orleans  or  Mobile. 
Let  the  Northern  manufacturers  and 
mechanics,  those  who  have  sold  the 
products  of  their  labor  to  the  South,  and 
heretofore  realized  the  prices  with  little 
loss  of  exchange,  —  let  them  try  present 
facilities.  Let  them  see  what  reform  of 
the  currency  has  done  for  them.  Let 
them  inquire  whether,  in  this  respect, 
their  condition  is  better  or  worse  than  it 
was  five  or  six  years  ago. 

Gentlemen,  I  hold  this  disturbance  of 
the  measure  of  value,  and  the  means  of 
payment  and  exchange,  this  derange 
ment,  and,  if  I  may  so  say,  this  violation 
of  the  currency,  to  be  one  of  the  most  un 
pardonable  of  political  faults.  He  who 
tampers  with  the  currency  robs  labor 
of  its  bread.  He  panders,  indeed,  to 
greedy  capital,  which  is  keen-sighted, 
and  may  shift  for  itself;  but  he  beggars 
labor,  which  is  honest,  unsuspecting, 
and  too  busy  with  the  present  to  calcu 
late  for  the  future.  The  prosperity  of 
the  working  classes  lives,  moves,  and 
has  its  being  in  established  credit,  and 
a  steady  medium  of  payment.  All  sud 
den  changes  destroy  it.  Honest  indus 
try  never  comes  in  for  any  part  of  the 
spoils  in  that  scramble  which  takes 
place  when  the  currency  of  a  country 
is  disordered.  Did  wild  schemes  and 
projects  ever  benefit  the  industrious? 
Did  irredeemable  bank  paper  ever  enrich 
the  laborious?  Did  violent  fluctuations 
ever  do  good  to  him  who  depends  on  his 
daily  labor  for  his  daily  bread?  Cer 
tainly  never.  All  these  things  may 


gratify  greediness  for  sudden  gain,  or 
the  rashness  of  daring  speculation;  but 
they  cart  bring  nothing  but  injury  and 
distress  to  the  homes  of  patient  industry 
and  honest  labor.  Who  are  they  that 
profit  by  the  present  state  of  things? 
They  are  not  the  many,  but  the  few. 
They  are  speculators,  brokers,  dealers 
in  money,  and  lenders  of  money  at  ex 
orbitant  interest.  Small  capitalists  are 
crushed,  and,  their  means  being  dis 
persed,  as  usual,  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  and  this  miserable  policy  hav 
ing  destroyed  exchanges,  they  have  no 
longer  either  money  or  credit.  And  all 
classes  of  labor  partake,  and  must  par 
take,  in  the  same  calamity.  And  what 
consolation  for  all  this  is  it,  that  the 
public  lands  are  paid  for  in  specie?  that, 
whatever  embarrassment  and  distress 
pervade  the  country,  the  Western  wil 
derness  is  thickly  sprinkled  over  with 
eagles  and  dollars?  that  gold  goes  weekly 
from  Milwaukie  and  Chicago  to  Detroit, 
and  back  again  from  Detroit  to  Mil 
waukie  and  Chicago,  and  performs  simi 
lar  feats  of  egress  and  regress,  in  many 
other  instances,  in  the  Western  States? 
It  is  remarkable  enough,  that,  with  all 
this  sacrifice  of  general  convenience, 
with  all  this  sky-rending  clamor  for  gov 
ernment  payments  in  specie,  government, 
after  all,  never  gets- a  dollar.  So  far  as 
I  know,  the  United  States  have  not  now 
a  single  specie  dollar  in  the  world.  If 
they  have,  where  is  it?  The  gold  and 
silver  collected  at  the  land  offices  is  sent 
to  the  deposit  banks ;  it  is  there  placed 
to  the  credit  of  the  government,  and 
thereby  becomes  the  property  of  the 
bank.  The  whole  revenue  of  the  gov 
ernment,  therefore,  after  all,  consists  in 
mere  bank  credits;  that  very  sort  of  se 
curity  which  the  friends  of  the  adminis 
tration  have  so  much  denounced. 

Remember,  Gentlemen,  in  the  midst 
of  this  deafening  din  against  all  banks, 
that,  if  it  shall  create  such  a  panic  as 
shall  shut  up  the  banks,  it  will  shut 
up  the  treasury  of  the  United  States 
also. 

Gentlemen,  I  would  not  willingly  be 
a  prophet  of  ill.  I  most  devoutly  wish 
to  see  a  better  state  of  things;  and  I 


RECEPTION  AT   NEW  YORK. 


443 


believe  the  repeal  of  the  treasury  order 
would  tend  very  much  to  bring  about 
that  better  state  of  things.  And  I  am 
of  opinion,  that,  sooner  or  later,  the 
order  will  be  repealed.  I  think  it  must 
be  repealed.  I  think  the  East,  West, 
North,  and  South  will  demand  its  re 
peal.  But,  Gentlemen,  I  feel  it  my 
duty  to  say,  that,  if  I  should  be  disap 
pointed  in  this  expectation,  I  see  no 
immediate  relief  to  the  distresses  of  the 
community.  I  greatly  fear,  even,  that 
the  worst  is  not  yet.1  I  look  for  severer 
distresses;  for  extreme  difficulties  in 
exchange,  for  far  greater  inconveniences 
in  remittance,  and  for  a  sudden  fall  in 
prices.  Our  condition  is  one  which  is 
not  to  be  tampered  with,  and  the  repeal 
of  the  treasury  order,  being  something 
which  government  can  do,  and  which 
w:ill  do  good,  the  public  voice  is  right  in 
demanding  that  repeal.  It  is  true,  if 
repealed  now,  the  relief  will  come  late. 
Nevertheless  its  repeal  or  abrogation  is 
a  thing  to  be  insisted  on,  and  pursued, 
till  it  shall  be  accomplished.  This  ex 
ecutive  control  over  the  currency,  this 
power  of  discriminating,  by  treasury 
order,  between  one  man's  debt  and  an 
other  man's  debt,  is  a  thing  not  to  be 
endured  in  a  free  country;  and  it  should 
be  the  constant,  persisting  demand  of 
all  true  Whigs,  "  Rescind  the  illegal 
treasury  order,  restore  the  rule  of  the 
law,  place  all  branches  of  the  revenue 
on  the  same  grounds,  make  men's  rights 
equal,  and  leave  the  government  of  the 
country  where  the  Constitution  leaves 
it,  in  the  hands  of  the  representatives  of 
the  people  in  Congress."  This  point 
should  never  be  surrendered  or  compro 
mised.  Whatever  is  established,  let  it 

1  On  the  10th  of  June  following  the  delivery 
of  this  speech,  all  the  banks  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  by  common  consent,  suspended  the  pay 
ment  of  their  notes  in  specie.  On  the  next  day, 
the  same  step  was  taken  by  the  banks  of  Bos 
ton  and  the  vicinity,  and  the  example  was  fol 
lowed  by  all  the  banks  south  of  New  York,  as 
they  received  intelligence  of  the  suspension  of 
specie  payments  in  that  city.  On  the  15th  of 
•Tune,  (just  three  months  from  the  day  this 
speech  was  delivered,)  President  Van  Buren 
issued  his  proclamation  calling  an  extra  ses 
sion  of  Congress  for  the  first  Monday  of  Sep 
tember. 


be  equal,  and  let  it  be  legal.  Let  men 
know,  to-day,  what  money  may  be  re 
quired  of  them  to-morrow.  Let  the  rule 
be  open  and  public,  on  the  pages  of  the 
statute-book,  not  a  secret,  in  the  execu 
tive  breast. 

Gentlemen,  in  the  session  which  has 
now  just  closed,  I  have  done  my  utmost 
to  effect  a  direct  and  immediate  repeal 
of  the  treasury  order. 

I  have  voted  for  a  bill  anticipating 
the  payment  of  the  French  and  Neapol 
itan  indemnities  by  an  advance  from 
the  treasury. 

I  have  voted  with  great  satisfaction 
for  the  restoration  of  duties  on  goods 
destroyed  in  the  great  conflagration  in 
this  city. 

I  have  voted  for  a  deposit  with  the 
States  of  the  surplus  which  may  be  in 
the  treasury  at  the  end  of  the  year.  All 
these  measures  have  failed ;  and  it  is  for 
you,  and  for  our  fellow-citizens  through 
out  the  country,  to  decide  whether  the 
public  interest  would,  or  would  not,  have 
been  promoted  by  their  success. 

But  I  find,  Gentlemen,  that  I  am 
committing  an  unpardonable  trespass  on 
your  indulgent  patience.  I  will  pursue 
these  remarks  no  further.  And  yet  I 
cannot  persuade  myself  to  take  leave  of 
you  without  reminding  you,  with  the 
utmost  deference  and  respect,  of  the  im 
portant  part  assigned  to  you  in  the 
political  concerns  of  your  country,  and 
of  the  great  influence  of  your  opinions, 
your  example,  and  your  efforts  upon  the 
general  prosperity  and  happiness. 

Whigs  of  New  York !  Patriotic  citi 
zens  of  this  great  metropolis!  Lovers 
of  constitutional  liberty,  bound  by  in 
terest  and  by  affection  to  the  institu 
tions  of  your  country,  Americans  in 
heart  and  in  principle!  —  you  are  ready, 
I  am  sure,  to  fulfil  all  the  duties  im 
posed  upon  you  by  your  situation,  and 
demanded  of  you  by  your  count ry. 
You  have  a  central  position;  your  city 
is  the  point  from  which  intelligence  em 
anates,  and  spreads  in  all  directions  over 
the  whole  land.  Every  hour  carries  re 
ports  of  your  sentiments  and  opinions 
to  the  verge  of  the  Union.  You  cannot 
escape  the  responsibility  which  circum- 


444 


RECEPTION  AT  NEW  YORK. 


stances  have  thrown  upon  you.  You 
must  live  and  act,  on  a  broad  and  con 
spicuous  theatre,  either  for  good  or  for 
evil  to  your  country.  You  cannot  shrink 
from  your  public  duties;  you  cannot  ob 
scure  yourselves,  nor  bury  your  talent. 
In  the  common  welfare,  in  the  common 
prosperity,  in  the  common  glory  of 
Americans,  you  have  a  stake  of  value 
not  to  be  calculated.  You  have  an  in 
terest  in  the  preservation  of  the  Union, 
of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  true 
principles  of  the  government,  which  no 
man  can  estimate.  You  act  for  your 
selves,  and  for  the  generations  that  are 
to  come  after  you;  and  those  who  ages 
hence  shall  bear  your  names,  and  par 
take  your  blood,  will  feel,  in  their  po 
litical  and  social  condition,  the  conse 
quences  of  the  manner  in  which  you 
discharge  your  political  duties. 

Having  fulfilled,  then,  on  your  part 
and  on  mine,  though  feebly  and  imper 
fectly  on  mine,  the  offices  of  kindness 
and  mutual  regard  required  by  this 
occasion,  shall  we  not  use  it  to  a  higher 
and  nobler  purpose?  Shall  we  not,  by 


this  friendly  meeting,  refresh  our  pa 
triotism,  rekindle  our  love  of  consti 
tutional*  liberty,  and  strengthen  our 
resolutions  of  public  duty?  Shall  we 
not,  in  all  honesty  and  sincerity,  with 
pure  and  disinterested  love  of  country, 
as  Americans,  looking  back  to  the  re 
nown  of  our  ancestors,  and  looking  for 
ward  to  the  interests  of  our  posterity, 
here,  to-night,  pledge  our  mutual  faith 
to  hold  on  to  the  last  to  our  professed 
principles,  to  the  doctrines  of  true  lib 
erty,  and  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  let  who  will  prove  true,  or  who 
will  prove  recreant?  AVhigs  of  New 
York !  I  meet  you  in  advance,  and  give 
you  my  pledge  for  my  own  performance 
of  these  duties,  without  qualification 
and  without  reserve.  Whether  in  pub 
lic  life  or  in  private  life,  in  the  Capi 
tol  or  at  home,  I  mean  never  to  desert 
them.  I  mean  never  to  forget  that  I 
have  a  country,  to  which  I  am  bound  by 
a  thousand  ties ;  and  the  stone  which  is 
to  lie  on  the  ground  that  shall  cover  me, 
shall  not  bear  the  name  of  a  son  ungrate 
ful  to  his  native  land. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE   DISTRICT   OF   COLUMBIA. 


REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  K)TH 
OF  JANUARY,  1838,  UPON  A  RESOLUTION  MOVED  BY  MR.  CLAY  AS  A 
SUBSTITUTE  FOR  THE  RESOLUTION  OFFERED  BY  MR.  CALHOUN  ON  THE 
SUBJECT  OF  SLAVERY  IN  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA. 


[ON  the  27th  of  December,  1837,  a  series 
of  resolutions  was  moved  in  the  Senate  by 
Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
The  fifth  of  the  series  was  expressed  in  the 
following  terms :  — 

"Resolved,  That  the  intermeddling  of 
any  State,  or  States,  or  their  citizens,  to 
abolish  slavery  in  this  District,  or  any  of 
the  Territories,  on  the  ground,  or  under  the 
pretext,  that  it  is  immoral  or  sinful,  or  the 
passage  of  any  act  or  measure  of  Congress 
with  that  view,  would  be  a  direct  and  dan 
gerous  attack  on  the  institutions  of  all  the 
slave-holding  States/' 

These  resolutions  were  taken  up  for  dis 
cussion  on  several  successive  days.  On  the 
10th  of  January,  1838,  Mr.  Clay  moved  the 
following  resolution,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  fifth  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  series  :  — 

"Resolved,  That  the  interference,  by 
the  citizens  of  any  of  the  States,  with  the 
view  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  this  Dis 
trict,  is  endangering  the  rights  and  security 
of  the  people  of  the  District;  and  that  any 
act  or  measure  of  Congress,  designed  to 
abolish  slavery  in  this  District,  would  be  a 
violation  of  the  faith  implied  in  the  ces 
sions  by  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Mary 
land,  a  just  cause  of  alarm  to  the  people  of 
the  slave-holding  States,  and  have  a  direct 
and  inevitable  tendency  to  disturb  and  en 
danger  the  Union." 

On  the  subject  of  this  amendment,  Mr. 
Webster  addressed  the  Senate  as  fol 
lows.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — I  cannot  concur 
in  this  resolution.  I  do  not  know  any 
matter  of  fact,  or  any  ground  of  ar 
gument,  on  which  this  affirmation  of 
plighted  faith  can  be  sustained.  I  see 
nothing  by  which  Congress  has  tied  up 
its  hands,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
so  as  to  put  its  clear  constitutional 


power  beyond  the  exercise  of  its  own 
discretion.  I  have  carefully  examined 
the  acts  of  cession  by  the  States,  the 
act  of  Congress,  the  proceedings  and 
history  of  the  times,  and  I  find  noth 
ing  to  lead  me  to  doubt  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  all  parties  to  leave  this, 
like  other  subjects  belonging  to  legisla 
tion  for  the  ceded  territory,  entirely  to 
the  discretion  and  wisdom  of  Congress. 
The  words  of  the  Constitution  are  clear 
and  plain.  None  could  be  clearer  or 
plainer.  Congress,  by  that  instrument, 
has  power  to  exercise  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion  over  the  ceded  territory,  in  all  cases 
whatsoever.  The  acts  of  cession  con 
tain  no  limitation,  condition,  or  qualifi 
cation  whatever,  except  that,  out  of 
abundant  .  caution,  there  is  inserted  a 
proviso  that  nothing  in  the  acts  con 
tained  shall  be  construed  to  vest  in  the 
United  States  any  right  of  property  in 
the  soil,  so  as  to  affect  the  rights  of 
individuals  therein,  otherwise  than  as 
such  individuals  might  themselves  trans 
fer  their  right  of  soil  to  the  United 
States.  The  acts  of  cession  declare, 
that  the  tract  of  country  "  is  for  ever 
ceded  and  relinquished  to  Congress  and 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
in  full  and  absolute  right  and  exclusive 
jurisdiction,  as  well  of  soil  as  of  persons 
residing  or  to  reside  therein,  pursuant 
to  the  tenor  and  effect  of  the  eighth  sec 
tion  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States." 


446 


SLAVERY   IN   THE  DISTRICT   OF  COLUMBIA. 


Now,  that  section,  to  which  reference 
is  thus  expressly  made  in  these  deeds 
of  cession,  declares,  that  Congress  shall 
have  power  "  to  exercise  exclusive  legis 
lation,  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such 
district,  not  exceeding  ten  miles  square, 
as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  States 
and  the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become 
the  seat  of  government  of  the  United 
States." 

Nothing,  therefore,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
can  be  clearer,  than  that  the  States  mak 
ing  the  cession  expected  Congress  to 
exercise  over  the  District  precisely  that 
power,  and  neither  more  nor  less,  which 
the  Constitution  had  conferred  upon  it. 
1  do  not  know  how  the  provision,  or  the 
intention,  either  of  the  Constitution  in 
granting  the  power,  or  of  the  States  in 
making  the  cession,  could  be  expressed 
in  a  manner  more  absolutely  free  from 
all  doubt  or  ambiguity. 

I  see,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  act  of 
cession,  and  nothing  in  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  nothing  in  the  history  of  this 
transaction,  and  nothing  in  any  other 
transaction,  implying  any  limitation 
upon  the  authority  of  Congress. 

If  the  assertion  contained  in  this 
resolution  be  true,  a  very  strange  re 
sult,  as  it  seems  to  me,  must  follow. 
The  resolution  affirms  that  the  faith  of 
Congress  is  pledged,  indefinitely.  It 
makes  no  limitation  of  time  or  circum 
stance.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is  an  obli 
gation  that  binds  us  for  ever,  as  much 
as  if  it  were  one  of  the  prohibitions  of 
the  Constitution  itself.  And  at  all  times 
hereafter,  even  if,  in  the  course  of  their 
history,  availing  themselves  of  events, 
or  changing  their  views  of  policy,  the 
States  themselves  should  make  provis 
ion  for  the  emancipation  of  their  slaves, 
the  existing  state  of  things  could  not  be 
changed,  nevertheless,  in  this  District. 
It  does  really  seem  to  me,  that,  if  this 
resolution,  in  its  terms,  be  true,  though 
slavery  in  every  other  part  of  the  world 
may  be  abolished,  yet  in  the  metrop 
olis  of  this  great  republic  it  is  estab 
lished  in  perpetuity.  This  appears  to 
me  to  be  the  result  of  the  doctrine 
of  plighted  faith,  as  stated  in  the  reso 
lution. 


In  reply  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  Mr.  Webster 
said :  — 

The  words  of  the  resolution  speak  for 
themselves.  They  require  no  comment. 
They  express  an  unlimited  plighted 
faith.  The  honorable  member  will  so 
see  if  he  will  look  at  those  words.  The 
gentleman  asks  whether  those  who  made 
the  cession  could  have  expected  that 
Congress  would  ever  exercise  such  a 
power.  To  this  I  answer,  that  I  see 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  parties  to 
the  cession  were  as  willing  to  leave  this 
as  to  leave  other  powers  to  the  discre 
tion  of  Congress.  I  see  not  the  slight 
est  evidence  of  any  especial  fear,  or  any 
especial  care  or  concern,  on  the  part  of 
the  ceding  States,  in  regard  to  this  par 
ticular  part  of  the  jurisdiction  ceded  to 
Congress.  And  I  think  I  can  ask,  on 
the  other  side,  a  very  important  question 
for  the  consideration  of  the  gentleman 
himself,  and  for  that  of  the  Senate  and 
the  country;  and  that  is,  Would  Con 
gress  have  accepted  the  cession  with  any 
such  restraint  upon  its  constitutional 
power,  either  express  or  understood  to 
be  implied?  I  think  not.  Looking  back 
to  the  state  of  things  then  existing,  and 
especially  to  what  Congress  had  so  re 
cently  done,  when  it  accepted  the  ces 
sion  of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  I 
entertain  no  doubt  whatever  that  Con 
gress  would  have  refused  the  cession  al 
together,  if  offered  with  any  condition 
or  understanding  that  its  constitutional 
authority  to  exercise  exclusive  legisla 
tion  over  the  District  in  all  cases  what 
soever  should  be  abridged. 

The  Senate  will  observe  that  I  am 
speaking  solely  to  the  point  of  plighted 
faith.  Upon  other  parts  of  the  resolu 
tion,  and  upon  many  other  things  con 
nected  with  it,  I  have  said  nothing.  I 
only  resist  the  imposition  of  new  obli 
gations,  or  a  new  prohibition,  not  to  be 
found,  as  I  think,  either  in  the  Consti 
tution  or  any  act  of  Congress.  I  have 
said  nothing  on  the  expediency  of  aboli 
tion,  immediate  or  gradual,  or  the  rea 
sons  which  ought  to  weigh  with  Con 
gress  should  that  question  be  proposed. 
I  can,  however,  well  conceive  what 
would,  as  I  think,  be  a  natural  and 


SLAVERY  IN  THE   DISTRICT   OF   COLUMBIA. 


447 


fair  mode  of  reasoning  on  such  an  oc 
casion. 

When  it  is  said,  for  instance,  by  way 
of  argument,  that  Congress,  although  it 
have  the  power,  ought  not  to  take  a  lead 
in  the  business  of  abolition,  consider 
ing  that  the  interest  which  the  United 
States  have  in  the  whole  subject  is  vastly 
less  than  that  which  States  have  in  it,  I 
can  understand  the  propriety  and  per 
tinency  of  the  observation.  It  is,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  a  pertinent  and  appro 
priate  argument,  and  I  shall  always  be 
ready  to  give  it  the  full  weight  belong 
ing  to  it.  When  it  is  argued  that,  in 
a  case  so  vital  to  the  States,  the  States 
themselves  should  be  allowed  to  main 
tain  their  own  policy,  and  that  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  ought  not 
to  do  any  thing  which  shall,  directly  or 
indirectly,  shake  or  disturb  that  policy, 
this  is  a  line  of  argument  which  I  can 
understand,  whatever  weight  I  may  be 
disposed  to  give  to  it;  for  I  have  always 
not  only  admitted,  but  insisted,  that 
slavery  within  the  States  is  a  subject 
belonging  absolutely  and  exclusively  to 
the  States  themselves. 

But  the  present  is  not  an  attempt  to 
establish  any  such  course  of  reasoning 
as  this.  The  attempt  is  to  set  up  a 
pledge  of  the  public  faith,  to  do  the  same 
office  that  a  constitutional  prohibition  in 
terms  would  do;  that  is,  to  set  up  a  di 
rect  bar,  precluding  all  exercise  of  the 
discretion  of  Congress  over  the  subject. 
It  has  been  often  said,  in  this  debate, 
and  I  believe  it  is  true,  that  a  decided 
majority  of  the  Senate  do  believe  that 
Congress  has  a  clear  constitutional 
power  over  slavery  in  this  District. 
But  while  this  constitutional  right  is 
admitted,  it  is  at  the  same  moment  at 
tempted  effectually  to  counteract,  over 
throw,  and  do  away  with  it,  by  the  affir 
mation  of  plighted  faith,  as  asserted  in 
the  resolution  before  us. 

Now,  I  have  already  said  I  know  of 
nothing  to  support  this  affirmation. 
Neither  in  the  acts  of  cession,  nor  in  the 
act  of  Congress  accepting  it,  nor  in  any 
other  document,  history,  publication,  or 
transaction,  do  I  know  of  a  single  fact 
or  suggestion  supporting  this  proposi 


tion,  or  tending  to  support  it.  Nor  has 
any  gentleman,  so  far  as  I  know,  pointed 
out,  or  attempted  to  point  out,  any  such 
fact,  document,  transaction,  or  other 
evidence.  All  is  left  to  the  general  and 
repeated  statement,  that  such  a  condi 
tion  must  have  been  intended  by  the 
States.  Of  all  this  I  see  no  proof  what 
ever.  I  see  no  evidence  of  any  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  States  thus  to  limit 
the  power  of  Congress,  or  thus  to  require 
a  pledge  against  its  exercise.  And,  in 
deed,  if  this  were  made  out,  the  inten 
tion  of  Congress,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
States,  must  be  inquired  into.  Nothing 
short  of  a  clear  and  manifest  intention 
of  both  parties,  proved  by  proper  evi 
dence,  can  amount  to  plighted  faith. 
The  expectation  or  intent  of  one  party, 
founded  on  something  not  provided  for 
nor  hinted  at  in  the  transaction  itself, 
cannot  plight  the  faith  of  the  other 
party. 

In  short,  I  am  altogether  unable  to 
see  any  ground  for  supposing  that  either 
party  to  the  cession  had  any  mental 
reservation,  any  unexpressed  expecta 
tion,  or  relied  on  any  implied,  but  un- 
mentioned  and  unsuggested  pledge, 
whatever.  By  the  Constitution,  if  a 
district  should  be  ceded  to  it  for  the 
seat  of  government,  Congress  was  to 
have  a  right,  in  express  terms,  to  exer 
cise  exclusive  legislation,  in  all  cases 
whatsoever.  The  cession  was  made  and 
accepted  in  pursuance  of  this  power. 
Both  parties  knew  well  what  they  were 
doing.  Both  parties  knew  that  by  the 
cession  the  States  surrendered  all  juris 
diction,  and  Congress  acquired  all  juris 
diction;  and  this  is  the  whole  transac 
tion. 

As  to  any  provision  in  the  acts  of  ces 
sion  stipulating  for  the  security  of  prop 
erty,  there  is  none,  excepting  only  what 
I  have  already  stated;  the  condition, 
namely,  that  no  right  of  individuals  to 
the  soil  should  be  construed  to  be  trans 
ferred,  but  only  the  jurisdiction.  But, 
no  doubt,  all  rights  of  property  ought  to 
be  duly  respected  by  Congress,  and  all 
other  legislatures. 

And  since  the  subject  of  compensa 
tion  to  the  owners  of  emancipated  slaves 


448 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA. 


has  been  referred  to,  I  take  occasion  to 
say,  that  if  Congress  should  think  that 
a  wise,  just,  and  politic  legislation  for 
this  District  required  it  to  make  com 
pensation  for  slaves  emancipated  here, 
it  has  the  same  constitutional  author 
ity  to  make  such  compensation  as  to 
make  grants  for  roads  and  bridges, 
almshouses,  penitentiaries,  and  other 
similar  objects,  in  the  District.  A 
general  and  absolute  power  of  legis 
lation  carries  with  it  all  the  necessary 
and  just  incidents  belonging  to  such 
legislation. 

Mr.  Clay  having  made  some  remarks  in 
reply,  Mr.  Webster  rejoined  :  — 

The  honorable  member  from  Ken 
tucky  asks  the  Senate  to  suppose  the 
opposite  case;  to  suppose  that  the  seat 
of  government  had  been  fixed  in  a 
free  State,  Pennsylvania,  for  exam 
ple;  and  that  Congress  had  attempted 
to  establish  slavery  in  a  district  over 
which,  as  here,  it  had  thus  exclusive 
legislation.  He  asks  whether,  in  that 
case,  Congress  could  establish  slavery  in 
such  a  place.  This  mode  of  changing 
the  question  does  not,  I  think,  vary 
the  argument;  and  I  answer,  at  once, 
that,  however  improbable  or  improper 
such  an  act  might  be,  yet,  if  the  power 
were  universal,  absolute,  and  without 


restriction,  it  might  unquestionably  be 
so  exercised.  No  limitation  being  ex 
pressed  or  intimated  in  the  grant  itself, 
or  any  other  proceeding  of  the  parties, 
none  could  be  implied. 

And  in  the  other  cases,  of  forts, 
arsenals,  and  dock-yards,  if  Congress 
has  exclusive  and  absolute  legislative 
power,  it  must,  of  course,  have  the 
power,  if  it  could  be  supposed  to  be 
guilty  of  such  folly,  whether  proposed 
to  be  exercised  in  a  district  within  a  free 
State,  to  establish  slavery,  or  in  a  dis 
trict  in  a  slave  State,  to  abolish  or  regu 
late  it.  If  it  be  a  district  over  which 
Congress  has,  as  it  has  in  this  District, 
unlimited  power  of  legislation,  it  seems 
to  me  that  whatever  would  stay  the  exer 
cise  of  this  power,  in  either  case,  must 
be  drawn  from  discretion,  from  reasons 
of  justice  and  true  policy,  from  those 
high  considerations  which  ought  to  in 
fluence  Congress  in  questions  of  such 
extreme  delicacy  and  importance;  and 
to  all  these  considerations  I  am  willing, 
and  always  shall  be  willing,  I  trust,  to 
give  full  weight.  But  I  cannot,  in  con 
science,  say  that  the  power  so  clearly 
conferred  on  Congress  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  as  a  power  to  be  exercised,  like 
others,  at  its  own  discretion,  is  imme 
diately  taken  away  again  by  an  implied 
faith  that  it  shall  not  be  exercised  at  all. 


THE    CREDIT    SYSTEM  AND   THE    LABOR   OF 
THE   UNITED   STATES. 

FROM    THE    SECOND    SPEECH   ON   THE    SUB-TREASURY,    DELIVERED    IN    THE 
SENATE  OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,   ON    THE    12TH   OF  MARCH,    1838. 


Now,  Mr.  President,  what  I  under 
stand  by  the  credit  system  is,  that  which 
thus  connects  labor  and  capital,  by  giv 
ing  to  labor  the  use  of  capital.  In 
other  words,  intelligence,  good  charac 
ter,  and  good  morals  bestow  on  those 
who  have  not  capital  a  power,  a  trust, 
a  confidence,  which  enables  them  to  ob 
tain  it,  and  to  employ  it  usefully  for 
themselves  and  others.  These  active 
men  of  business  build  their  hopes  of  suc 
cess  on  their  attentiveness,  their  econ 
omy,  and  their  integrity.  A  wider 
theatre  for  useful  activity  is  under  their 
feet,  and  around  them,  than  was  ever 
open  to  the  young  and  enterprising  gen 
erations  of  men,  on  any  other  spot  en 
lightened  by  the  sun.  Before  them  is 
the  ocean.  Every  thing  in  that  direc 
tion  invites  them  to  efforts  of  enterprise 
and  industry  in  the  pursuits  of  commerce 
and  the  fisheries.  Around  them,  on  all 
hands,  are  thriving  and  prosperous  man 
ufactures,  an  improving  agriculture,  and 
the  daily  presentation  of  new  objects 
of  internal  improvement;  while  behind 
them  is  almost  half  a  continent  of  the 
richest  land,  at  the  cheapest  prices,  un 
der  healthful  climates,  and  washed  by 
the  most  magnificent  rivers  that  on  any 
part  of  the  globe  pay  their  homage  to 
the  sea.  In  the  midst  of  all  these  glow 
ing  and  glorious  prospects,  they  are 
neither  restrained  by  ignorance,  nor 
smitten  down  by  the  penury  of  personal 
circumstances.  They  are  not  compelled 
to  contemplate,  in  hopelessness  and  de 


spair,  all  the  advantages  thus  bestowed 
on  their  condition  by  Providence.  Cap 
ital  they  may  have  little  or  none,  but 
CREDIT  supplies  its  place;  not  as  the 
refuge  of  the  prodigal  and  the  reckless; 
not  as  gratifying  present  wants  with  the 
certainty  of  future  absolute  ruin ;  but  as 
the  genius  of  honorable  trust  and  confi 
dence;  as  the  blessing  voluntarily  offered 
to  good  character  and  to  good  conduct; 
as  the  beneficent  agent,  which  assists 
honesty  and  enterprise  in  obtaining  com 
fort  and  independence. 

Mr.  President,  take  away  this  credit, 
and  what  remains?  I  do  not  ask  what 
remains  to  the  few,  but  to  the  many? 
Take  away  this  system  of  credit,  and 
then  tell  me  what  is  left  for  labor  and 
industry,  but  mere  manual  toil  and 
daily  drudgery?  If  we  adopt  a  system 
that  withdraws  capital  from  active  em 
ployment,  do  we  not  diminish  the  rate 
of  wages?  If  we  curtail  the  general 
business  of  society,  does  not  every  labor 
ing  man  find  his  condition  grow  daily 
worse?  In  the  politics  of  the  day,'  Sir, 
we  hear  much  said  about  divorcing 
the  government  from  the  banks;  but 
when  we  abolish  credit,  we  shall  di 
vorce  labor  from  capital;  and  depend 
upon  it,  Sir,  when  we  divorce  labor 
from  capital,  capital  is  hoarded,  and 
labor  starves. 

The  declaration  so  often  quoted,  that 
"  all  who  trade  on  borrowed  capital 
ought  to  break,"  is  the  most  aristocratic 
sentiment  ever  uttered  in  this  country. 


9,9 


450 


THE  CREDIT  SYSTEM  AND  THE  LABOR 


It  is  a  sentiment  which,  if  carried  out 
by  political  arrangement,  would  con 
demn  the  great  majority  of  mankind  to 
the  perpetual  condition  of  mere  day- 
laborers.  It  tends  to  take  away  from 
them  all  that  solace  and  hope  which 
arise  from  possessing  something  which 
they  can  call  their  own.  A  man  loves 
his  own;  it  is  fit  and  natural  that  he 
should  do  so;  and  he  will  love  his  coun 
try  and  its  institutions,  if  he  have  some 
stake  in  that  country,  although  it  be  but 
a  very  small  part  of  the  general  mass  of 
property.  If  it  be  but  a  cottage,  an 
acre,  a  garden,  its  possession  raises  him, 
gives  him  self-respect,  and  strengthens 
his  attachment  to  his  native  land.  It  is 
our  happy  condition,  by  the  blessing  of 
Providence,  that  almost  every  man  of 
sound  health,  industrious  habits,  and 
good  morals,  can  ordinarily  attain,  at 
least,  to  this  degree  of  comfort  and  re 
spectability;  and  it  is  a  result  devoutly 
to  be  wished,  both  for  its  individual  and 
its  general  consequences. 

But  even  to  this  degree  of  acquisition 
that  credit  of  which  I  have  already  said 
so  much  is  highly  important,  since  its 
general  effect  is  to  raise  the  price  of 
wages,  and  render  industry  productive. 
There  is  no  condition  so  low,  if  it  be 
attended  with  industry  and  economy, 
that  it  is  not  benefited  by  credit,  as  any 
one  will  find,  if  he  will  examine  and 
follow  out  its  operations. 

Sir,  if  there  be  any  aristocrats  in 
Massachusetts,  the  people  are  all  aristo 
crats;  because  I  do  not  believe  there  is 
on  earth,  in  a  highly  civilized  society,  a 
greater  equality  in  the  condition  of  men 
than  exists  there.  If  there  be  a  man  in 
the  State  who  maintains  what  is  called 
an  equipage,  has  servants  in  livery,  or 
drives  four  horses  in  his  coach,  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  him.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  few  who  are  not  able  to 
carry  their  wives  and  daughters  to  church 
in  some  decent  conveyance.  It  is  no 
matter  of  regret  or  sorrow  to  us  that 
few  are  very  rich;  but  it  is  our  pride 
and  glory  that  few  are  very  poor.  It  is 
our  still  higher  pride,  and  our  just  boast, 
as  I  think,  that  all  her  citizens  possess 


means  of  intelligence  and  education ; 
and  that,  of  all  her  productions,  she 
reckons  among  the  very  chiefest  those 
which  spring  from  the  culture  of  the 
mind  and  the  heart. 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  most  strik 
ing  characteristics  of  this  age  is  the 
extraordinary  progress  which  it  has  wit 
nessed  in  popular  knowledge.  A  new 
and  powerful  impulse  has  been  acting 
in  the  social  system  of  late,  producing 
this  effect  in  a  most  remarkable  degree. 
In  morals,  in  politics,  in  art,  in  litera 
ture,  there  is  a  vast  accession  to  the 
number  of  readers  and  to  the  number 
of  proficients.  The  present  state  of 
popular  knowledge  is  not  the  result  of 
a  slow  and  uniform  progress,  proceeding 
through  a  lapse  of  years,  with  the  same 
regular  degree  of  motion.  It  is  evi 
dently  the  result  of  some  new  causes, 
brought  into  powerful  action,  and  pro 
ducing  their  consequences  rapidly  and 
strikingly.  What,  Sir,  are  these  causes? 

This  is  not  an  occasion,  Sir,  for  dis 
cussing  such  a  question  at  length ;  allow 
me  to  say,  however,  that  the  improved 
state  of  popular  knowledge  is  but  the 
necessary  result  of  the  improved  con 
dition  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people. 
Knowledge  is  not  one  of  our  merely 
physical  wants.  Life  may  be  sustained 
without  it.  But,  in  order  to  live,  men 
must  be  fed  and  clothed  and  sheltered ; 
and  in  a  state  of  things  in  which  one's 
whole  labor  can  do  no  more  than  pro 
cure  clothes,  food,  and  shelter,  he  can 
have  no  time  nor  means  for  mental 
improvement.  Knowledge,  therefore,  is 
not  attained,  and  cannot  be  attained, 
•till  there  is  some  degree  of  respite  from 
daily  manual  toil  and  never-ending 
drudgery.  Whenever  a  less  degree  of 
labor  will  produce  the  absolute  necessa 
ries  of  life,  then  there  come  leisure  and 
means  both  to  teach  and  to  learn. 

If  this  great  and  wonderful  extension 
of  popular  knowledge  be  the  result  of  an 
improved  condition,  it  maj',  in  the  next 
place,  well  be  asked,  What  are  the  causes 
which  have  thus  suddenly  produced  that 
great  improvement?  How  is  it  that  the 
means  of  food,  clothing,  and  shelter  are 
now  so  much  more  cheaply  and  abun- 


OF  THE  UNITED   STATES. 


451 


dantly  procured  than  formerly?  Sir,  the 
main  cause  I  take  to  be  the  progress  of 
scientific  artr  or  a  new  extension  of  the 
application  of  science  to  art.  This  it  is 
which  has  so  much  distinguished  the 
last  half-century  in  Europe  and  in 
America;  and  its  effects  are  everywhere 
visible,  and  especially  among  us.  Man 
has  found  new  allies  and  auxiliaries  in 
the  powers  of  nature  and  in  the  inven 
tions  of  mechanism. 

The  general  doctrine  of  political  econ 
omy  is,  that  wealth  consists  in  whatever 
is  useful  or  convenient  to  man,  and  that 
labor  is  the  producing  cause  of  all  this 
wealth. '  This  is  very  true.  But,  then, 
what  is  labor?  In  the  sense  of  political 
writers,  and  in  common  language,  it 
means  human  industry;  in  a  philosophi 
cal  view,  it  may  receive  a  much  more 
comprehensive  meaning.  It  is  not,  in 
that  view,  human  toil  only,  the  mere 
action  of  thews  and  muscles;  but  it  is 
any  active  agency  which,  working  upon 
the  materials  with  which  the  world  is 
supplied,  brings  forth  products  useful 
or  convenient  to  man.  The  materials 
of  wealth  are  in  the  earth,  in  the  seas, 
and  in  their  natural  and  unaided  pro 
ductions.  Labor  obtains  these  mate 
rials,  works  upon  them,  and  fashions 
them  to  human  use.  Now  it  has  been 
the  object  of  scientific  art,  or  of  the 
application  of  science  to  art,  to  increase 
this  active  agency,  to  augment  its  power, 
by  creating  millions  of  laborers  in  the 
form  of  machines  all  but  automatic,  all 
to  be  diligently  employed  and  kept  at 
work  by  the  force  of  natural  powers. 
To  this  end  these  natural  powers,  prin 
cipally  those  of  steam  and  falling  water, 
are  subsidized  and  taken  into  human  em 
ployment.  Spinning-machines,  power- 
looms,  and  all  the  mechanical  devices, 
acting,  among  other  operatives,  in  the 
factories  and  workshops,  are  but  so 
many  laborers.  They  are  usually  de 
nominated  labor-saving  machines,  but  it 
would  be  more  just  to  call  them  labor- 
doing  machines.  They  are  made  to  be 
active  agents;  to  have  motion,  and  to 
produce  effect;  and  though  without  in 
telligence,  they  are  guided  by  laws  of 
science,  which  are  exact  and  perfect, 


and  they  produce  results,  therefore,  in 
general,  more  accurate  than  the  human 
hand  is  capable  of  producing.  When 
we  look  upon  one  of  these,  we  behold  a 
mute  fellow-laborer,  of  immense  power, 
of  mathematical  exactness,  and  of  ever- 
during  and  unwearied  effort.  And 
while  he  is  thus  a  most  skilful  and  pro 
ductive  laborer,  he  is  a  non-consumer, 
at  least  beyond  the  wants  of  his  me 
chanical  being.  He  is  not  clamorous 
for  food,  raiment,  or  shelter,  and  makes 
no  demands  for  the  expenses  of  educa 
tion.  The  eating  and  drinking,  the  read 
ing  and  writing,  and  the  clothes-wearing 
world,  are  benefited  by  the  labors  of 
these  co-operatives,  in  the  same  way  as 
if  Providence  had  provided  for  their 
service  millions  of  beings,  like  ourselves 
in  external  appearance,  able  to  labor 
and  to  toil,  and  yet  requiring  little  or 
nothing  for  their  own  consumption  or 
subsistence ;  or  rather,  as  if  Providence 
had  created  a  race  of  giants,  each  of 
whom,  demanding  no  more  for  his  sup 
port  and  consumption  than  a  common 
laborer,  should  yet  be  able  to  perform 
the  work  of  a  hundred. 

Now,  Sir,  turn  back  to  the  Massachu 
setts  tables  of  production,  and  you  will 
see  that  it  is  these  automatic  allies  and 
co-operators,  and  these  powers  of  nature, 
thus  employed  and  placed  under  human 
direction,  which  have  come,  with  such 
prodigious  effect,  to  man's  aid,  in  the 
great  business  of  procuring  the  means 
of  living,  of  comfort,  and  of  wealth,  and 
which  have  so  swollen  the  products  of 
her  skilful  industry.  Look  at  these  ta 
bles  once  more,  Sir,  and  you  will  see  the 
effects  of  labor,  united  with  and  acting 
upon  capital.  Look  yet  again,  and  you 
will  see  that  credit,  mutual  trust,  prompt 
and  punctual  dealings,  and  commercial 
confidence,  are  all  mixed  up  as  indis 
pensable  elements  in  the  general  sys 
tem. 

I  will  ask  you  to  look  yet  once  more, 
Sir,  and  you  will  perceive  that  general 
competence,  great  equality  in  human 
condition,  a  degree  of  popular  knowl 
edge  and  intelligence  nowhere  surpassed, 
if  anywhere  equalled,  the  prevalence  of 
good  moral  sentiment,  and  extraordi- 


452 


THE   CREDIT   SYSTEM  OF   THE   UNITED    STATES. 


nary  general  prosperity,  are  the  result 
of  the  whole.  Sir,  I  have  done  with 
Massachusetts.  I  do  not  praise  the  old 
"  Bay  State  "  of  the  Revolution;  I  only 
present  her  as  she  is. 

Mr.  President,  such  is  the  state  of 
things  actually  existing  in  the  country, 
and  of  which  I  have  now  given  you  a 
sample.  And  yet  there  are  persons  who 
constantly  clamor  against  this  state  of 
things.  They  call  it  aristocracy.  They 
excite  the  poor  to  make  war  upon  the 
rich,  while  in  truth  they  know  not  who 
are  either  rich  or  poor.  They  complain 
of  oppression,  speculation,  and  the  per 
nicious  influence  of  accumulated  wealth. 
They  cry  out  loudly  against  all  banks 
and  corporations,  and  all  the  means  by 
which  small  capitals  become  united,  in 
order  to  produce  important  and  benefi 
cial  results.  They  carry  on  a  mad  hos 
tility  against  all  established  institutions. 
They  would  choke  up  the  fountains  of 
industry,  and  dry  all  its  streams. 

In  a  country  of  unbounded  liberty, 
they  clamor  against  oppression.  In  a 
country  of  perfect  equality,  they  would 
move  heaven  and  earth  against  privilege 
and  monopoly.  In  a  country  where  prop 


erty  is  more  equally  divided  than  any 
where  else,  they  rend  the  air  with  the 
shouting  of  agrarian  doctrines.  In  a 
country  where  the  wages  of  labor  are 
high  beyond  all  parallel,  and  where  lands 
are  cheap,  and  the  means  of  living  low, 
they  would  teach  the  laborer  that  he  is 
but  an  oppressed  slave.  Sir,  what  can 
such  men  want?  What  do  they  mean? 
They  can  want  nothing,  Sir,  but  to  en 
joy  the  fruits  of  other  men 's  labor.  They 
can  mean  nothing  but  disturbance  and 
disorder,  the  diffusion  of  corrupt  princi 
ples,  and  the  destruction  of  the  moral 
sentiments  and  moral  habits  of  society. 
A  licentiousness  of  feeling  and  of  action 
is  sometimes  produced  by  prosperity  it 
self.  Men  cannot  always  resist  the  temp 
tation  to  which  they  are  exposed  by  the 
very  abundance  of  the  bounties  of  Prov 
idence,  and  the  very  happiness  of  their 
own  condition;  as  the  steed,  full  of  the 
pasture,  will  sometimes  throw  himself 
against  its  enclosures,  break  away  from 
its  confinement,  and,  feeling  now  free 
from  needless  restraint,  betake  himself 
to  the  moors  and  barrens,  where  want, 
erelong,  brings  him  to  his  senses,  and 
starvation  and  death  close  his  career. 


REMAKES    ON    THE    POLITICAL    COURSE    OF 
MR.    CALHOUN,   IN   1838. 


FROM  THE  SAME  SPEECH. 


HAVING  had  occasion,  Mr.  President, 
to  speak  of  nullification  and  the  nulli- 
fiers,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  have  not 
done  so  for  any  purpose  of  reproach. 
Certainly,  Sir,  I  see  no  possible  connec 
tion,  myself,  between  their  principles  or 
opinions,  arid  the  support  of  this  meas 
ure.1  They,  however,  must  speak  for 
themselves.  They  may  have  intrusted 
the  bearing  of  their  standard,  for  aught 
I  know,  to  the  hands  of  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina;  and  I 
perceived  last  session  what  I  perceive 
now,  that  in  his  opinion  there  is  a  con 
nection  between  these  projects  of  gov 
ernment  and  the  doctrines  of  nullifica 
tion.  I  can  only  say,  Sir,  that  it  will 
be  marvellous  to  me,  if  that  banner, 
though  it  be  said  to  be  tattered  and 
torn,  shall  yet  be  lowered  in  obeisance, 
and  laid  at  the  footstool  of  executive 
power.  To  the  sustaining  of  that  power, 
the  passage  of  this  bill  is  of  the  utmost 
importance.  The  administration  will 
regard  its  success  as  being  to  them,  what 
Cromwell  said  the  battle  of  Worcester 
was  to  him,  "a  crowning  mercy." 
Whether  gentlemen,  who  have  distin 
guished  themselves  so  much  by  their 
extreme  jealousy  of  this  government, 
shall  now  find  it  consistent  with  their 
principles  to  give  their  aid  in  effecting 
this  consummation,  remains  to  be  seen. 

The  next  exposition  of  the  honorable 
gentleman's  sentiments  and  opinions  is 
i  in  his  letter  of  the  3d  of  November. 

This  letter,  Sir,  is  a  curiosity.  As  a 
i  The  Sub-Treasury. 


paper  describing  political  operations,  and 
exhibiting  political  opinions,  it  is  with 
out  a  parallel.  Its  phrase  is  altogether 
military.  It  reads  like  a  despatch,  or  a 
bulletin  from  head-quarters.  It  is  full 
of  attacks,  assaults,  and  repulses.  It 
recounts  movements  and  counter-move 
ments;  speaks  of  occupying  one  posi 
tion,  falling  back  upon  another,  and 
advancing  to  a  third;  it  has  positions 
to  cover  enemies,  and  positions  to  hold 
allies  in  check.  Meantime,  the  celerity 
of  all  these  operations  reminds  one  of 
the  rapidity  of  the  military  actions  of 
the  king  of  Prussia,  in  the  Seven  Years' 
war.  Yesterday,  he  was  in  the  South, 
giving  battle  to  the  Austrian ;  to-day  he 
is  in  Saxony,  or  Silesia.  Instantly  he 
is  found  to  have  traversed  the  Elector 
ate,  and  is  facing  the  Russian  and  the 
Swede  on  his  northern  frontier.  If  you 
look  for  his  place  on  the  map,  before 
you  find  it  he  has  quitted  it.  He  is 
always  marching,  flying,  falling  back, 
wheeling,  attacking,  defending,  surpris 
ing;  fighting  everywhere,  and  fighting 
all  the  time.  In  one  particular,  how 
ever,  the  campaigns  described  in  this 
letter  are  conducted  in  a  different  man 
ner  from  those  of  the  great  Frederick. 
I  think  we  nowhere  read,  in  the  narra 
tive  of  Frederick's  achievements,  of  his 
taking  a  position  to  cover  an  enemy, 
or  a  position  to  hold  an  ally  in  check. 
These  refinements  in  the  science  of  tac 
tics  and  of  war  are  of  more  recent  dis 
covery. 

Mr.  President,  public  men  must  cer- 


454 


REMARKS   ON   THE  POLITICAL 


tainly  be  allowed  to  change  their  opin 
ions,  and  their  associations,  whenever 
they  see  fit.  No  one  doubts  this.  Men 
may  have  grown  wiser;  they  may  have 
attained  to  better  and  more  correct  views 
of  great  public  subjects.  It  would  be 
unfortunate,  if  there  were  any  code  which 
should  oblige  men,  in  public  or  private 
life,  to  adhere  to  opinions  once  enter 
tained,  in  spite  of  experience  and  better 
knowledge,  and  against  their  own  con 
victions  of  their  erroneous  character. 
Nevertheless,  Sir,  it  must  be  acknowl 
edged,  that  what  appears  to  be  a  sud 
den,  as  well  as  a  great  change,  naturally 
produces  a  shock.  I  confess  that,  for 
one,  I  was  shocked  when  the  honorable 
gentleman,  at  the  last  session,  espoused 
this  bill  of  the  administration.  And 
when  I  first  read  this  letter  of  Novem 
ber,  and,  in  the  short  space  of  a  column 
and  a  half,  ran  through  such  a  succes 
sion  of  political  movements,  all  termi 
nating  in  placing  the  honorable  member 
in  the  ranks  of  our  opponents,  and  en 
titling  him  to  take  his  seat,  as  he  has 
done,  among  them,  if  not  at  their  head, 
I  confess  I  felt  still  greater  surprise. 
All  this  seemed  a  good  deal  too  abrupt. 
Sudden  movements  of  the  affections, 
whether  personal  or  political,  are  a  little 
out  of  nature. 

Several  years  ago,  Sir,  some  of  the 
wits  of  England  wrote  a  mock  play,  in 
tended  to  ridicule  the  unnatural  arid 
false  feeling,  the  sentimentality  of  a  cer 
tain  German  school  of  literature.  In 
this  play,  two  strangers  are  brought 
together  at  an  inn.  While  they  are 
warming  themselves  at  the  fire,  and  be 
fore  their  acquaintance  is  yet  five  min 
utes  old,  one  springs  up  and  exclaims  to 
the  other,  "  A  sudden  thought  strikes 
me!  Let  us  swear  an  eternal  friend 
ship!"  This  affectionate  offer  was  in 
stantly  accepted,  and  the  friendship  duly 
sworn,  unchangeable  and  eternal !  Now, 
Sir,  how  long  this  eternal  friendship 
lasted,  or  in  what  manner  it  ended, 
those  who  wish  to  know  may  learn  by 
referring  to  the  play. 

But  it  seems  to  me,  Sir,  that  the  hon 
orable  member  has  carried  his  political 
sentimentality  a  good  deal  higher  than 


the  flight  of  the  German  school ;  for  he 
appears  to  have  fallen  suddenly  in  love, 
not  witti  strangers,  but  with  opponents. 
Here  we  all  had  been,  Sir,  contending 
against  the  progress  of  executive  power, 
and  more  particularly,  and  most  strenu 
ously,  against  the  projects  and  experi 
ments  of  the  administration  upon  the 
currency.  The  honorable  member  stood 
among  us,  not  only  as  an  associate,  but 
as  a  leader.  We  thought  we  were  mak 
ing  some  headway.  The  people  ap 
peared  to  be  coming  to  our  support  and 
our  assistance.  The  country  had  been 
roused,  every  successive  election  weak 
ening  the  strength  of  the  adversary,  and 
increasing  our  own.  We  were  in  this 
career  of  success  carried  strongly  for 
ward  by  the  current  of  public  opinion, 
and  only  needed  to  hear  the  cheering 
voice  of  the  honorable  member, 

"Once  more  unto  the  breach,  dear  friends,  once 
more!  " 

and  we  should  have  prostrated  for  ever 
this  anti-constitutional,  anti-commercial, 
anti-republican,  and  anti- American  pol 
icy  of  the  administration.  But  instead 
of  these  encouraging  and  animating  ac 
cents,  behold!  in  the  very  crisis  of  our 
affairs,  on  the  very  eve  of  victory,  the 
honorable  member  cries  out  to  the  ene 
my, —  not  to  us,  his  allies,  but  to  the 
enemy:  "Hollo!  A  sudden  thought 
strikes  me !  I  abandon  my  allies !  Now 
I  think  of  it,  they  have  always  been  my 
oppressors!  I  abandon  them,  and  now 
let  you  and  me  swear  an  eternal  friend 
ship!"  Such  a  proposition,  from  such 
a  quarter,  Sir,  was  not  likely  to  be  long 
withstood.  The  other  party  was  a  little 
coy,  but,  upon  the  whole,  nothing  loath. 
After  proper  hesitation,  and  a  little  de 
corous  blushing,  it  owned  the  soft  im 
peachment,  admitted  an  equally  sudden 
sympathetic  impulse  on  its  own  side; 
and,  since  few  words  are  wanted  where 
hearts  are  already  known,  the  honorable 
gentleman  takes  his  place  among  his 
new  friends  amidst  greetings  and  caress 
es,  and  is  already  enjoying  the  sweets 
of  an  eternal  friendship. 

In   this    letter,    Mr.     President,    the 
writer  says,  in  substance,  that  he  saw, 


COURSE   OF  MR.  CALHOUN. 


455 


at  the  commencement  of  the  last  ses 
sion,  that  affairs  had  reached  the  point 
when  he  and  his  friends,  according  to 
the  course  they  should  take,  would  reap 
the  full  harvest  of  their  long  and  arduous 
struggle  against  the  encroachments  and 
abuses  of  the  general  government,  or 
lose  the  fruits  of  all  their  labors.  At 
that  time,  he  says,  State  interposition 
(viz.  Nullification)  had  overthrown  the 
protective  tariff  and  the  American  sys 
tem,  and  put  a  stop  to  Congressional 
usurpation;  that  he  had  previously  been 
united  with  the  National  Republicans; 
but  that,  in  joining  such  allies,  he  was 
not  insensible  to  the  embarrassment  of 
his  position ;  that  with  them  victory  it 
self  was  dangerous,  and  that  therefore 
he  had  been  waiting  for  events;  that 
now  (that  is  to  say,  in  September  last) 
the  joint  attacks  of  the  allies  had  brought 
down  executive  power;  that  the  admin 
istration  had  become  divested  of  power 
and  influence,  and  that  it  was  now  clear 
that  the  combined  attacks  of  the  allied 
forces  would  utterly  overthrow  and  de 
molish  it.  All  this  he  saw.  But  he 
saw,  too,  as  he  says,  that  in  that  case 
the  victory  would  inure,  not  to  him  or 
his  cause,  but  to  his  allies  and  their 
cause.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he 
spoke  of  personal  victories,  or  alluded 
to  personal  objects,  at  all.  He  spoke  of 
his  cause. 

He  proceeds  to  say,  then,  that  never 
was  there  before,  and  never,  probably, 
will  there  be  again,  so  fair  an  oppor 
tunity  for  himself  and  his  friends  to 
carry  out  their  own  principles  and  policy, 
and  to  reap  the  fruits  of  their  long  and 
arduous  struggle.  These  principles  and 
this  policy,  Sir,  be  it  remembered, 
he  represents,  all  along,  as  identified 
with  the  principles  and  policy  of  nullifi 
cation.  And  he  makes  use  of  this  glo 
rious  opportunity  by  refusing  to  join  his 
late  allies  in  any  further  attack  on  those 
in  power,  and  rallying  anew  the  old 
State-rights  party  to  hold  in  check 
their  old  opponents,  the  National  Re 
publican  party.  This,  he  says,  wTould 
enable  him  to  prevent  the  complete  as 
cendency  of  his  allies,  and  to  compel  the 
Southern  division  of  the  administration 


party  to  occupy  the  ground  of  which  he 
proposes  to  take  possession,  to  wit,  the 
ground  of  the  old  State-rights  party. 
They  will  have,  he  says,  no  other  alter 
native. 

Mr.  President,  stripped  of  its  military 
language,  what  is  the  amount  of  all 
this,  but  that,  finding  the  administration 
weak,  and  likely  to  be  overthrown,  if 
the  opposition  continued  with  undimin- 
ished  force,  he  wrent  over  to  it,  he  joined 
it;  intending  to  act,  himself,  upon  nul 
lification  principles,  and  to  compel  the 
Southern  members  of  the  administra 
tion  to  meet  him  on  those  principles  ?  — 
in  other  words,  to  make  a  nullification 
administration,  and  to  take  such  part 
in  it  as  should  belong  to  him  and  his 
friends.  He  confesses,  Sir,  that  in  thus 
abandoning  his  allies,  and  taking  a  po 
sition  to  cover  those  in  power,  he  per 
ceived  a  shock  would  be  created  which 
would  require  some  degree  of  resolution 
and  firmness.  In  this  he  was  right.  A 
shock,  Sir,  has  been  created;  yet  there 
he  is. 

This  administration,  Sir,  is  repre 
sented  as  succeeding  to  the  last,  by  an 
inheritance  of  principle.  It  professes 
to  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  its  illustrious 
predecessor.  It  adopts,  generally,  the 
sentiments,  principles,  and  opinions  of 
General  Jackson,  proclamation  and  all; 
and  yet,  though  he  be  the  very  prince 
of  nullifiers,  and  but  lately  regarded  as 
the  chiefest  of  sinners,  it  receives  the 
honorable  gentleman  with  the  utmost 
complacency.  To  all  appearance,  the 
delight  is  mutual;  they  find  him  an  able 
leader,  he  finds  them  complying  fol 
lowers.  But,  Sir,  in  all  this  movement 
he  understands  himself.  He  means  to 
go  ahead,  and  to  take  them  along.  He 
is  in  the  engine-car;  he  controls  the 
locomotive.  His  hand  regulates  the 
steam,  to  increase  or  retard  the  speed 
at  his  discretion.  And  as  to  the  occu 
pants  of  the  passenger-cars,  Sir,  they 
are  as  happy  a  set  of  gentlemen  as  one 
might  desire  to  see  of  a  summer's  day. 
They  feel  that  they  are  in  progress;  they 
hope  they  shall  not  be  run  off  the  track ; 
and  when  they  reach  the  end  of  their 
journey,  they  desire  to  be  thankful! 


456 


REMARKS   ON   THE  POLITICAL 


The  arduous  struggle  is  now  all  over. 
Its  richest  fruits  are  all  reaped;  nullifi 
cation  embraces  the  sub-treasuries,  and 
oppression  and  usurpation  will  be  heard 
of  no  more. 

On  the  broad  surface  of  the  country, 
Sir,  there  is  a  spot  called  "  the  Her 
mitage."  In  that  residence  is  an  occu 
pant  very  well  known,  and  not  a  little 
remarkable  both  in  person  and  charac 
ter.  Suppose,  Sir,  the  occupant  of  the 
Hermitage  were  now  to  open  that  door, 
enter  the  Senate,  walk  forward,  and 
look  over  the  chamber  to  the  seats  on 
the  other  side.  Be  not  frightened,  gen 
tlemen;  it  is  but  fancy's  sketch.  Sup 
pose  he  should  thus  come  in  among  us, 
Sir,  and  see  into  whose  hands  has  fallen 
the  chief  support  of  that  administra 
tion,  which  was,  in  so  great  a  degree, 
appointed  by  himself,  and  which  he 
fondly  relied  on  to  maintain  the  prin 
ciples  of  his  own.  If  gentlemen  were 
now  to  see  his  steady  military  step,  his 
erect  posture,  his  compressed  lips,  his 
firmly-knitted  brow,  and  his  eye  full  of 
fire,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  Sir,  they 
would  all  feel  somewhat  queer.  There 
would  be,  I  imagine,  not  a  little  awk 
ward  moving  and  shifting  in  their  seats. 
They  would  expect  soon  to  hear  the  roar 
of  the  lion,  even  if  they  did  not  feel  his 
paw. 

Sir,  the  spirit  of  union  is  particularly 
liable  to  temptation  and  seduction  in 
moments  of  peace  and  prosperity.  In 
war,  this  spirit  is  strengthened  by  a 
sense  of  common  danger,  and  by  a  thou 
sand  recollections  of  ancient  efforts  and 
ancient  glory  in  a  common  cause.  But 
in  the  calms  of  a  long  peace,  and  in  the 
absence  of  all  apparent  causes  of  alarm, 
things  near  gain  an  ascendency  over 
things  remote.  Local  interests  and  feel 
ings  overshadow  national  sentiments. 
Our  attention,  our  regard,  and  our  at 
tachment  are  every  moment  solicited  to 
what  touches  us  closest,  and  we  feel  less 
and  less  the  attraction  of  a  distant  orb. 
Such  tendencies  we  are  bound  by  true 
patriotism  and  by  our  love  of  union  to 
resist.  This  is  our  duty;  and  the  mo 
ment,  in  my  judgment,  has  arrived, 


when  that  duty  should  be   performed. 
We  hear,  every  day,  sentiments  and  ar- 
gument*  which  would  become  a  meeting 
of  envoys,  employed  by  separate  govern 
ments,  more  than  they  become  the  com 
mon    legislature   of   a   united   country. 
Constant  appeals  are  made  to  local  in 
terests,  to  geographical  distinctions,  and 
to  the  policy  and  the  pride  of  particular 
States.     It  would  sometimes  appear  as 
if  it  were  a  settled  purpose  to  convince 
the  people  that  our  Union   is  nothing 
but  a  jumble  of  different  and  discordant 
interests,  which  must,  erelong,    be   all 
resolved  into  their  original  state  of  sep 
arate  existence;  as  if,  therefore,  it  was  of 
no  great  value  while  it  should  last,  and 
was  not  likely  to  last  long.    The  process 
of  disintegration  begins  by  urging  as  a 
fact  the  existence  of  different  interests. 
Sir,  is  not  the  end  to  which  all  this 
leads   us   obvious?     Who   does  not  see 
that,    if   convictions  of  this  kind  take 
possession  of  the  public  mind,  our  Un 
ion  can  hereafter  be  nothing,  while  it 
remains,  but  a  connection  without  har 
mony  ;  a  bond  without  affection ;  a  thea 
tre  for  the  angry  contests  of  local  feelings, 
local  objects,  and  local  jealousies?    Even 
while  it  continues  to  exist  in  name,  it 
may  by  these  means  become  nothing  but 
the  mere  form  of  a  united  government. 
My  children,  and  the  children  of  those 
who  sit  around  me,  may  meet,  perhaps, 
in  this  chamber,  in  the  next  generation ; 
but  if  tendencies  now  but  too  obvious  be 
not  checked,  they  will  meet  as  strangers 
and  aliens.     They  will  feel  no  sense  of 
common    interest   or   common  country; 
they  will  cherish  no  common  object  of 
patriotic  love.     If  the  same  Saxon  lan 
guage  shall  fall  from  their  lips,  it  may 
be  the  chief  proof  that  they  belong  to 
the  same  nation.     Its  vital  principle  ex 
hausted  and  gone,  its  power  of   doing 
good  terminated,  the  Union  itself,  be 
come  productive  only  of  strife  and  con 
tention,  must  ultimately  fall,  dishonored 
and  unlamented. 

The  honorable  member  from  Carolina 
himself  habitually  indulges  in  charges 
of  usurpation  and  oppression  against  the 
government  of  his  country.  He  daily 
denounces  its  important  measures,  in  the 


COURSE   OF  MR.   CALHOUN. 


457 


language  in  which  our  Revolutionary 
fathers  spoke  of  the  oppressions  of  the 
mother  country.  Not  merely  against 
executive  usurpation,  either  real  or  sup 
posed,  does  he  utter  these  sentiments, 
but  against  laws  of  Congress,  laws  passed 
by  large  majorities,  laws  sanctioned  for 
a  course  of  years  by  the  people.  These 
laws  he  proclaims,  every  hour,  to  be  but 
a  series  of  acts  of  oppression.  He  speaks 
of  them  as  if  it  were  an  admitted  fact, 
that  such  is  their  true  character.  This 
is  the  language  he  utters,  these  are  the 
sentiments  he  expresses,  to  the  rising 
generation  around  him.  Are  they  sen 
timents  and  language  which  are  likely 
to  inspire  our  children  with  the  love  of 
union,  to  enlarge  their  patriotism,  or  to 
teach  them,  and  to  make  them  feel,  that 
their  destiny  has  made  them  common 
citizens  of  one  great  and  glorious  repub 
lic?  A  principal  object  in  his  late  polit 
ical  movements,  the  gentleman  himself 
tells  us,  was  to  unite  the  entire  South ; 
and  against  whom,  or  against  what, 
does  he  wish  to  unite  the  entire  South? 
Is  not  this  the  very  essence  of  local  feel 
ing  and  local  regard?  Is  it  not  the  ac 
knowledgment  of  a  wish  and  object  to 
create  political  strength  by  uniting  polit 
ical  opinions  geographically?  While  the 
gentleman  thus  wishes  to  unite  the  en 
tire  South,  I  pray  to  know,  Sir,  if  he  ex 
pects  me  to  turn  toward  the  polar  star, 
and,  acting  on  the  same  principle,  to 
utter  a  cry  of  Rally !  to  the  whole  North? 
Heaven  forbid !  To  the  day  of  my  death, 
neither  he  nor  others  shall  hear  such  a 
cry  from  me. 

Finally,  the  honorable  member  de 
clares  that  he  shall  now  march  off,  un 
der  the  banner  of  State  rights !  March 
off  from  whom?  March  off  from  what? 
We  have  been  contending  for  great  prin 
ciples.  We  have  been  struggling  to 
maintain  the  liberty  and  to  restore  the 
prosperity  of  the  country ;  we  have  made 
these  struggles  here,  in  the  national 
councils,  with  the  old  flag,  the  true 
American  flag,  the  Eagle,  and  the  Stars 
and  Stripes,  waving  over  the  chamber 
in  which  we  sit.  He  now  tells  us,  how 


ever,  that  he  marches  off  under  the  State- 
rights  banner! 

Let  him  go.  I  remain.  I  am  where 
I  ever  have  been,  and  ever  mean  to  be. 
Here,  standing  on  the  platform  of  the 
general  Constitution,  a  platform  broad 
enough  and  firm  enough  to  uphold  every 
interest  of  the  whole  country,  I  shall 
still  be  found.  Intrusted  with  some  part 
in  the  administration  of  that  Constitu 
tion,  I  intend  to  act  in  its  spirit,  and  in 
the  spirit  of  those  who  framed  it.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  would  act  as  if  our  fathers,  who 
formed  it  for  us  and  who  bequeathed  it 
to  us,  were  looking  on  me;  as  if  I  could 
see  their  venerable  forms  bending  down 
to  behold  us  from  the  abodes  above.  I 
would  act,  too,  as  if  the  eye  of  posterity 
was  gazing  on  me. 

Standing  thus,  as  in  the  full  gaze  of 
our  ancestors  and  our  posterity,  hav 
ing  received  this  inheritance  from  the 
former,  to  be  transmitted  to  the  latter, 
and  feeling  that,  if  I  am  born  for  any 
good,  in  my  day  and  generation,  it  is 
for  the  good  of  the  whole  country,  no 
local  policy  or  local  feeling,  no  tempo 
rary  impulse,  shall  induce  me  to  yield 
my  foothold  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
Union.  I  move  off  under  no  banner  not 
known  to  the  whole  American  people, 
and  to  their  Constitution  and  laws.  No, 
Sir;  these  walls,  these  columns, 

"shall  fly 
From  their  firm  base  as  soon  as  I." 

I  came  into  public  life,  Sir,  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States.  On  that 
broad  altar,  my  earliest,  and  all  my  pub 
lic  vows,  have  been  made.  I  propose 
to  serve  no  other  master.  So  far  as  de 
pends  on  any  agency  of  mine,  they  shall 
continue  united  States;  united  in  inter 
est  and  in  affection;  united  in  every 
thing  in  regard  to  which  the  Constitu 
tion  has  decreed  their  union ;  united  in 
war,  for  the  common  defence,  the  com 
mon  renown,  and  the  common  glory: 
and  united,  compacted,  knit  firmly  to 
gether  in  peace,  for  the  common  pros 
perity  and  happiness  of  ourselves  and 
our  children. 


REPLY  TO    MR.  CALHOUN. 

A    SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN    THE  SENATE   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES,   ON   THE 
22o  OF  MARCH,  1838,   IN   ANSWER   TO   MR.    CALHOUN. 


[ON  Thursday,  the  22d  of  March,  Mr. 
Calhoun  spoke  at  length  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  of  the  12th  of  March. 

When  he  had  concluded,  Mr.  Webster 
immediately  rose,  and  addressed  the  Sen 
ate  as  follows.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  T  came  rather  late 
to  the  Senate  this  morning,  and,  hap 
pening  to  meet  a  friend  on  the  Avenue, 
I  was  admonished  to  hasten  my  steps, 
as  "  the  war  was  to  be  carried  into 
Africa,"  and  I  was  expected  to  be  anni 
hilated.  I  lost  no  time  in  following  the 
advice,  Sir,  since  it  would  be  awkward 
for  one  to  be  annihilated  without  know 
ing  any  thing  about  it. 

Well,  Sir,  the  war  has  been  carried 
into  Africa.  The  honorable  member 
has  made  an  expedition  into  regions  as 
remote  from  the  subject  of  this  debate 
as  the  orb  of  Jupiter  from  that  of  our 
earth.  He  has  spoken  of  the  tariff,  of 
slavery,  and  of  the  late  war.  Of  all  this 
I  do  not  complain.  On  the  contrary,  if 
it  be  his  pleasure  to  allude  to  all  or  any 
of  these  topics,  for  any  purpose  what 
ever,  I  am  ready  at  all  times  to  hear  him. 

Sir,  this  carrying  the  war  into  Africa, 
which  has  become  so  common  a  phrase 
among  us,  is,  indeed,  imitating  a  great 
example;  but  it  is  an  example  which  is 
not  always  followed  with  success.  In 
the  first  place,  every  man,  though  he  be 
a  man  of  talent  and  genius,  is  not  a 
Scipio;  and  in  the  next  place,  as  I  rec 
ollect  this  part  of  Roman  and  Cartha 
ginian  history, — the  gentleman  may  be 


more  accurate,  but,  as  I  recollect  it, 
when  Scipio  resolved  upon  carrying  the 
war  into  Africa,  Hannibal  was  not  at 
home.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  very  little  like 
Hannibal,  but  I  am  at  home;  and  when 
Scipio  Africanus  South-Caroliniensis 
brings  the  war  into  my  territories,  I 
shall  not  leave  their  defence  to  Asdru- 
bal,  nor  Syphax,  nor  anybody  else.  I 
meet  him  on  the  shore,  at  his  landing, 
and  propose  but  one  contest. 

"Concurritur;  horse 
Momento  cita  mors  venit,  aut  victoria  Iseta." 

Mr.  President,  I  had  made  up  my 
mind  that,  if  the  honorable  gentleman 
should  confine  himself  to  a  reply  in  the 
ordinary  way,  I  would  not  say  another 
syllable.  But  he  has  not  done  so.  He 
has  gone  off  into  topics  quite  remote 
from  all  connection  with  revenue,  com 
merce,  finance,  or  sub-treasuries,  and 
invites  to  a  discussion  which,  however 
uninteresting  to  the  public  at  the  pres 
ent  moment,  is  too  personal  to  be  de 
clined  by  me. 

He  says,  Sir,  that  I  undertook  to  com 
pare  my  political  character  and  conduct 
with  his.  Far  from  it.  I  attempted  no 
such  thing.  I  compared  the  gentle 
man's  political  opinions  at  different 
times  with  one  another,  and  expressed 
decided  opposition  to  those  which  he 
now  holds.  And  I  did,  certainly,  ad 
vert  to  the  general  tone  and  drift  of  the 
gentleman's  sentiments  and  expressions 
for  some  years  past,  in  their  bearing  on 


REPLY   TO   MR.  CALHOUN. 


459 


the  Union,  with  such  remarks  as  I 
thought  they  deserved;  but  I  instituted 
no  comparison  between  him  and  myself. 
He  may  institute  one  if  he  pleases,  and 
when  he  pleases.  Seeking  nothing  of 
this  kind,  I  avoid  nothing.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  that  the  gentleman  began 
the  debate,  by  attempting  to  exhibit  a 
contrast  between  the  present  opinions 
and  conduct  of  my  friends  and  myself, 
and  our  recent  opinions  and  conduct. 
Here  is  the  first  charge  of  inconsist 
ency;  let  the  public  judge  whether 
lie  has  made  it  good.  He  says,  Sir, 
that  on  several  questions  I  have  taken 
different  sides,  at  different  times;  let 
him  show  it.  If  he  shows  any  change 
of  opinion,  I  shall  be  called  on  to  give 
a  reason,  and  to  account  for  it.  I  leave 
it  to  the  country  to  say  whether,  as  yet, 
he  has  shown  any  such  thing. 

But,  Sir,  before  attempting  that,  he 
has  something  else  to  say.  He  had 
prepared,  it  seems,  to  draw  comparisons 
himself.  He  had  intended  to  say  some 
thing,  if  time  had  allowed,  upon  our 
respective  opinions  and  conduct  in  re 
gard  to  the  war.  If  time  had  allowed! 
Sir,  time  does  allow,  time  must  al 
low.  A  general  remark  of  that  kind 
ought  not  to  be,  cannot  be,  left  to  pro 
duce  its  effect,  when  that  effect  is  ob 
viously  intended  to  be  unfavorable. 
Why  did  the  gentleman  allude  to  my 
votes  or  my  opinions  respecting  the  war 
at  all,  unless  he  had  something  to  say? 
Does  he  wish  to  leave  an  undefined  im 
pression  that  something  was  done,  or 
something  said,  by  me,  not  now  capable 
of  defence  or  justification?  something 
not  reconcilable  with  true  patriotism? 
He  means  that,  or  nothing.  And  now, 
Sir,  let  him  bring  the  matter  forth ;  let 
him  take  the  responsibility  of  the  ac 
cusation;  let  him  state  his  facts.  I  am 
here  to  answer;  I  am  here,  this  day,  to 
answer.  ^N"ow  is  the  time,  and  now  the 
hour.  I  think  we  read,  Sir,  that  one  of 
the  good  spirits  would  not  bring  against 
the  Arch-enemy  of  mankind  a  railing 
accusation;  and  W7hat  is  railing  but  gen 
eral  reproach,  an  imputation  without 
fact,  time,  or  circumstance?  Sir,  I  call 
for  particulars.  The  gentleman  knows 


my  whole  conduct  well  ;  indeed,  the 
journals  show  it  all,  from  the  moment  I 
came  into  Congress  till  the  peace.  If  I 
have  done,  then,  Sir,  any  thing  unpatri 
otic,  any  thing  which,  as  far  as  love  to 
country  goes,  will  not  bear  comparison 
with  his  or  any  man's  conduct,  let  it 
now  be  stated.  Give  me  the  fact,  the 
time,  the  manner.  He  speaks  of  the 
war;  that  which  we  call  the  late  war, 
though  it  is  now  twenty-five  years  since 
it  terminated.  He  would  leaVe  an  im 
pression  that  I  opposed  it.  "How?  I 
was  not  in  Congress  when  war  was  de 
clared,  nor  in  public  life  anywhere.  I 
was  pursuing  my  profession,  keeping 
company  with  judges  and  jurors,  and 
plaintiffs  and  defendants.  If  I  had 
been  in  Congress,  and  had  enjoyed  the 
benefit  of  hearing  the  honorable  gentle 
man's  speeches,  for  aught  I  can  say,  I 
might  have  concurred  with  him.  But 
I  was  not  in  public  life.  I  never  had 
been,  for  a  single  hour;  and  was  in  no 
situation,  therefore,  to  oppose  or  to  sup 
port  the  declaration  of  war.  I  am 
speaking  to  the  fact,  Sir;  and  if  the 
-gentleman  has  any  fact,  let  us  know  it. 
Well,  Sir,  I  came  into  Congress  dur 
ing  the  war.  I  found  it  waged,  and 
raging.  And  what  did  I  do  here  to  op 
pose  it?  Look  to  the  journals.  Let  the 
honorable  gentleman  tax  his  memory. 
Bring  up  any  thing,  if  there  be  any 
thing  to  bring  up,  not  showing  error  of 
opinion,  but  showing  want  of  loyalty  or 
fidelity  to  the  country.  I  did  not  agree 
to  all  that  was  proposed,  nor  did  the 
honorable  member.  I  did  not  approve 
of  every  measure,  nor  did  he.  The  war 
had  been  preceded  by  the  restrictive  sys 
tem  and  the  embargo.  As  a  private  in 
dividual,  I  certainly  did  not  think  well 
of  these  measures.  It  appeared  to  me 
that  the  embargo  annoyed  ourselves  as 
much  as  our  enemies,  while  it  destroyed 
the  business  and  cramped  the  spirits 
of  the  people.  In  this  opinion  I  may 
have  been  right  or  wrong,  but  the  gen 
tleman  was  himself  of  the  same  opinion. 
He  told  us  the  other  day,  as  a  proof  of 
his  independence  of  party  on  great  ques 
tions,  that  he  differed  with  his  friends 
on  the  subject  of  the  embargo.  He  was 


460 


REPLY   TO   MR.    CALHOUN. 


decidedly  and  unalterably  opposed  to  it. 
It  furnishes  in  his  judgment,  therefore, 
no  imputation  either  on  my  patriotism, 
or  on  the  soundness  of  my  political 
opinions,  that  I  was  opposed  to  it  also. 
I  mean  opposed  in  opinion ;  for  I  was 
not  in  Congress,  and  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  act  creating  the  embargo.  And 
as  to  opposition  to  measures  for  carry 
ing  on  the  war,  after  I  came  into  Con 
gress,  I  again  say,  let  the  gentleman 
specify;  let  him  lay  his  finger  on  any 
thing  calling  for  an  answer,  and  he  shall 
have  an  answer. 

Mr.  President,  you  were  yourself  in 
the  House  during  a  considerable  part  of 
this  time.  The  honorable  gentleman 
may  make  a  witness  of  you.  He  may 
make  a  witness  of  anybody  else.  He 
may  be  his  own  witness.  Give  us  but 
some  fact,  some  charge,  something  ca 
pable  in  itself  either  of  being  proved  or 
disproved.  Prove  any  thing,  state  any 
thing,  not  consistent  with  honorable  and 
patriotic  conduct,  and  I  am  ready  to  an 
swer  it.  Sir,  I  am  glad  this  subject  has 
been  alluded  to  in  a  manner  which  jus 
tifies  me  in  taking  public  notice  of  it; 
because  I  am  well  aware  that,  for  ten 
years  past,  infinite  pains  has  been  taken 
to  find  something,  in  the  range  of  these 
topics,  which  might  create  prejudice 
against  me  in  the  country.  The  jour 
nals  have  all  been  pored  over,  and  the 
reports  ransacked,  and  scraps  of  para 
graphs  and  half-sentences  have  been  col 
lected,  fraudulently  put  together,  and 
then  made  to  flare  out  as  if  there  had 
been  some  discovery.  But  all  this  failed. 
The  next  resort  was  to  supposed  corre 
spondence.  My  letters  were  sought  for, 
to  learn  if,  in  the  confidence  of  private 
friendship,  I  had  ever  said  any  thing 
which  an  enemy  could  make  use  of. 
With  this  view,  the  vicinity  of  my  for 
mer  residence  has  been  searched,  as  with 
a  lighted  candle.  New  Hampshire  has 
been  explored,  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Merrimack  to  the  White  Hills.  In  one 
instance  a  gentleman  had  left  the  State, 
gone  five  hundred  miles  off,  and  died. 
His  papers  were  examined;  a  letter  was 
found,  and  I  have  understood  it  was 
brought  to  Washington  ;  a  conclave  was 


held  to  consider  it,  and  the  result  was, 
that,  if  there  was  nothing  else  against 
Mr.  Webster,  the  matter  had  better  be 
let  alone.  Sir,  I  hope  to  make  every 
body  of  that  opinion  who  brings  against 
me  a  charge  of  want  of  patriotism.  Er 
rors  of  opinion  can  be  found,  doubtless, 
on  many  subjects;  but  as  conduct  flows 
from  the  feelings  which  animate  the 
heart,  I  know  that  no  act  of  my  life  has 
had  its  origin  in  the  want  of  ardent  love 
of  country. 

Sir,  when  I  came  to  Congress,  I  found 
the  honorable  gentleman  a  leading  mem 
ber  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Well,  Sir,  in  what  did  we  differ?  One 
of  the  first  measures  of  magnitude,  after 
I  came  here,  was  Mr.  Dallas's  l  proposi 
tion  for  a  bank.  It  was  a  war  measure. 
It  was  urged  as  being  absolutely  neces 
sary  to  enable  government  to  carry  on 
the  war.  Government  wanted  revenue ; 
such  a  bank,  it  was  hoped,  would  furnish 
it;  and  on  that  account  it  was  most 
warmly  pressed  and  urged  on  Congress. 
You  remember  all  this,  Mr.  President. 
You  remember  how  much  some  persons 
supposed  the  success  of  the  war  and  the 
salvation  of  the  country  depended  on 
carrying  that  measure.  Yet  the  honor 
able  member  from  South  Carolina  op 
posed  this  bill.  He  now  takes  to  himself 
a  good  deal  of  merit,  none  too  much,  but 
still  a  good  deal  of  merit,  for  having  de 
feated  it.  Well,  Sir,  I  agreed  with  him. 
It  was  a  mere  paper  bank;  a  machine 
for  fabricating  irredeemable  paper.  It 
was  a  new  form  for  paper  money;  and 
instead  of  benefiting  the  country,  I 
thought  it  would  plunge  it  deeper  and 
deeper  in  difficulty.  I  made  a  speech 
on  the  subject ;  it  has  often  been  quoted. 
There  it  is;  let  whoever  pleases  read  and 
examine  it.  I  am  not  proud  of  it  for 
any  ability  it  exhibits;  on  the  other 
hand,  I  am  not  ashamed  of  it  for  the 
spirit  which  it  manifests.  But,  Sir,  I 
say  again  that  the  gentleman  himself 
took  the  lead  against  this  measure,  this 
darling  measure  of  the  administration. 
I  followed  him;  if  I  was  seduced  into 
error,  or  into  unjustifiable  opposition, 
there  sits  my  seducer. 

1  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


REPLY   TO   MR.    CALHOUN. 


461 


What,  Sir,  were  other  leading  senti 
ments  or  leading  measures  of  that  day? 
On  what  other  subjects  did  men  differ? 
The  gentleman  has  adverted  to  one,  and 
that  a  most  important  one ;  I  mean  the 
navy.  He  says,  and  says  truly,  that  at 
the  commencement  of  the  war  the  navy 
was  unpopular.  It  was  unpopular  with 
his  friends,  who  then  controlled  the 
politics  of  the  country.  But  he  says  he 
differed  with  his  friends;  in  this  respect 
he  resisted  party  influence  and  party 
connection,  and  was  the  friend  and  ad 
vocate  of  the  navy.  Sir,  I  commend 
him  for  it.  He  showed  his  wisdom. 
That  gallant  little  navy  soon  fought 
itself  into  favor,  and  showed  that  no 
man  who  had  placed  reliance  on  it  had 
been  disappointed. 

Well,  Sir,  in  all  this  I  was  exactly  of 
the  opinion  of  the  honorable  gentleman. 

Sir,  I  do  not  know  when  my  opinion 
of  the  importance  of  a  naval  force  to  the 
United  States  had  its  origin.  I  can  give 
no  date  to  my  present  sentiments  on  this 
subject,  because  I  never  entertained  dif 
ferent  sentiments.  I  remember,  Sir,  that 
immediately  after  coming  into  my  pro 
fession,  at  a  period  when  the  navy  was 
most  unpopular,  when  it  was  called  by 
all  sorts  of  hard  names  and  designated 
by  many  coarse  epithets,  on  one  of  those 
occasions  on  which  young  men  address 
their  neighbors,  I  ventured  to  put  forth 
a  boy's  hand  in  defence  of  the  navy.  I 
insisted  on  its  importance,  its  adaptation 
to  our  circumstances  and  to  our  national 
character,  and  its  indispensable  neces 
sity,  if  we  intended  to  maintain  and  ex 
tend  our  commerce.  These  opinions  and 
sentiments  I  brought  into  Congress;  and 
the  first  time  in  which  I  presumed  to 
speak  on  the  topics  of  the  day,  I  at 
tempted  to  urge  on  the  House  a  greater 
attention  to  the  naval  service.  There 
were  divers  modes  of  prosecuting  the 
war.  On  these  modes,  or  on  the  degree 
of  attention  and  expense  which  should 
be  bestowed  on  each,  different  men  held 
different  opinions.  I  confess  I  looked 
with  most  hope  to  the  results  of  naval 
warfare,  and  therefore  I  invoked  gov 
ernment  to  invigorate  and  strengthen 
that  arm  of  the  national  defence.  I 


invoked  it  to  seek  its  enemy  upon  the 
seas,  to  go  where  every  auspicious  indi 
cation  pointed,  and  where  the  whole 
heart  and  soul  of  the  country  would  go 
with  it. 

Sir,  we  were  at  war  with  the  greatest 
maritime  power  on  earth.  England  had 
gained  an  ascendency  on  the  seas  over 
all  the  combined  powers  of  Europe. 
She  had  been  at  war  twenty  years. 
She  had  tried  her  fortunes  on  the  Con 
tinent,  but  generally  with  no  success. 
At  one  time  the  whole  Continent  had 
been  closed  against  her.  A  long  line  of 
armed  exterior,  an  unbroken  hostile  ar 
ray,  frowned  upon  her  from  the  Gulf  of 
Archangel,  round  the  promontory  of 
Spain  and  Portugal,  to  the  extreme  point 
of  Italy.  There  was  not  a  port  which  an. 
English  ship  could  enter.  Everywhere 
on  the  land  the  genius  of  her  great 
enemy  had  triumphed.  He  had  de 
feated  armies,  crushed  coalitions,  and 
overturned  thrones;  but,  like  the  fabled 
giant,  he  was  unconquerable  only  while 
he  touched  the  land.  On  the  ocean  he 
\vas  powerless.  That  field  of  fame  was 
his  adversary's,  and  her  meteor  flag  was 
streaming  in  triumph  over  its  whole  ex 
tent. 

To  her  maritime  ascendency  England 
owed  every  thing,  and  we  were  now  at 
war  with  her.  One  of  the  most  charm 
ing  of  her  poets  had  said  of  her,  — 

"  Her  march  is  o'er  the  mountain  waves, 
Her  home  is  on  the  deep." 

Now,  Sir,  since  we  were  at  war  with 
her,  I  was  for  intercepting  this  march; 
I  was  for  calling  upon  her,  and  paying 
our  respects  to  her,  at  home;  I  was  for 
giving  her  to  know  that  we,  too,  had  a 
right  of  way  over  the  seas,  and  that  our 
marine  officers  and  our  sailors  were  not 
entire  strangers  on  the  bosom  of  the 
deep.  I  was  for  doing  something  more 
with  our  navy  than  keeping  it  on  our 
own  shores,  for  the  protection  of  our 
coasts  and  harbors;  I  was  for  giving 
play  to  its  gallant  and  burning  spirit; 
for  allowing  it  to  go  forth  upon  the  seas, 
and  to  encounter,  on  an  open  and  an 
equal  field,  whatever  the  proudest  or  the 
bravest  of  the  enemy  could  bring  against 


462 


REPLY  TO  MR.   CALHOUN. 


it.  I  knew  the  character  of  its  officers 
and  the  spirit  of  its  seamen ;  and  Iknew 
that,  in  their  hands,  though  the  flag  of 
the  country  might  go  down  to  the  bot 
tom,  yet,  while  defended  by  them,  that 
it  could  never  be  dishonored  or  dis 
graced. 

Since  she  was  our  enemy,  and  a  most 
powerful  enemy,  I  was  for  touching  her, 
if  we  could,  in  the  very  apple  of  her  eye ; 
for  reaching  the  highest  feather  in  her 
cap;  for  clutching  at  the  very  brightest 
jewel  in  her  crown.  There  seemed  to 
me  to  be  a  peculiar  propriety  in  all  this, 
as  the  war  was  undertaken  for  the  re 
dress  of  maritime  injuries  alone.  It 
was  a  war  declared  for  free  trade  and 
sailors'  rights.  The  ocean,  therefore, 
was  the  proper  theatre  for  deciding  this 
controversy  with  our  enemy,  and  on  that 
theatre  it  was  my  ardent  wish  that  our 
own  power  should  be  concentrated  to 
the  utmost. 

So  much,  Sir,  for  the  war,  and  for  rny 
conduct  and  opinions  as  connected  with 
it.  And,  as  I  do  not  mean  to  recur  to 
this  subject  often,  nor  ever,  unless  in 
dispensably  necessary,  I  repeat  the  de 
mand  for  any  charge,  any  accusation, 
any  allegation  whatever,  that  throws  me 
behind  the  honorable  gentleman,  or  be 
hind  any  other  man,  in  honor,  in  fidel 
ity,  in  devoted  love  to  that  country  in 
which  I  was  born,  which  has  honored 
me,  and  which  I  serve.  I,  who  seldom 
deal  in  defiance,  now,  here,  in  my  place, 
boldly  defy  the  honorable  member  to  put 
his  insinuation  in  the  form  of  a  charge, 
and  to  support  that  charge  by  any  proof 
whatever. 

The  gentleman  has  adverted  to  the 
subject  of  slavery.  On  this  subject,  he 
says,  I  have  not  proved  myself  a  friend 
to  the  South.  Why,  Sir,  the  only  proof 
is,  that  I  did  not  vote  for  his  resolu 
tions. 

Sir,  this  is  a  very  grave  matter;  it  is 
a  subject  very  exciting  and  inflammable. 
I  take,  of  course,  all  the  responsibility 
belonging  to  my  opinions;  but  I  desire 
these  opinions  to  be  understood,  and 
fairly  stated.  If  I  am  to  be  regarded  as 
an  enemy  to  the  South,  because  I  could 
not  support  the  gentleman's  resolutions. 


be  it  so.  I  cannot  purchase  favor  from 
any  quarter,  by  the  sacrifice  of  clear  and 
conscientious  convictions.  The  princi 
pal  resolution  declared  that  Congress 
had  plighted  its  faith  not  to  interfere 
either  with  slavery  or  the  slave  trade 
in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Now,  Sir,  this  is  quite  a  new  idea.  I 
never  heard  it  advanced  until  this  ses 
sion.  I  have  heard  gentlemen  contend 
that  no  such  power  was  in  the  Constitu 
tion;  but  the  notion,  that,  though  the 
Constitution  contained  the  power,  yet 
Congress  had  plighted  its  faith  not  to 
exercise  such  a  power,  is  an  entire  nov 
elty,  so  far  as  I  know.  I  must  say,  Sir, 
it  appeared  to  me  little  else  than  an  at 
tempt  to  put  a  prohibition  into  the  Con 
stitution,  because  there  was  none  there 
already.  For  this  supposed  plighting  of 
the  public  faith,  or  the  faith  of  Con 
gress,  I  saw  no  ground,  either  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  government,  or  in  any  one 
fact,  or  in  any  argument.  I  therefore 
could  not  vote  for  the  proposition. 

Sir,  it  is  now  several  years  since  I  took 
care  to  make  my  opinion  known,  that 
this  government  has,  constitutionally, 
nothing  to  do  with  slavery,  as  it  exists 
in  the  States.  That  opinion  is  entirely 
unchanged.  I  stand  steadily  by  the 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  adopted,  after  much  consideration, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  govern 
ment,  which  was,  that  Congress  has  no 
authority  to  interfere  in  the  emancipa 
tion  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of 
them,  within  any  of  the  States;  it  re 
maining  with  the  several  States  alone  to 
provide  any  regulations  therein,  which 
humanity  and  true  policy  may  require. 
This,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  Constitution 
and  the  law.  I  feel  bound  by  it.  I 
have  quoted  the  resolution  often.  It  ex 
presses  the  judgment  of  men  of  all  parts 
of  the  country,  deliberately  and  coolly 
formed;  and  it  expresses  my  judgment, 
and  I  shall  adhere  to  it.  But  this  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  other  constitu 
tional  question ;  that  is  to  say,  the  mere 
constitutional  question  whether  Con 
gress  has  the  power  to  regulate  slavery 
and  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 


REPLY  TO  MR.  CALHOUN. 


463 


On  such  a  question,  Sir,  when  I  am 
asked  what  the  Constitution  is,  or 
whether  any  power  granted  by  it 
has  been  compromised  away,  or,  in 
deed,  could  be  compromised  away,  I 
must  express  my  honest  opinion,  and 
always  shall  express  it,  if  I  say  any 
thing,  notwithstanding  it  may  not  meet 
concurrence  either  in  the  South,  or  the 
North,  or  the  East,  or  the  West.  I  can 
not  express  by  my  vote  what  I  do  not 
believe.  The  gentleman  has  chosen  to 
bring  that  subject  into  this  debate,  writh 
which  it  has  no  concern;  but  he  may 
make  the  most  of  it,  if  he  thinks  he  can 
produce  unfavorable  impressions  against 
me  at  the  South  from  my  negative  to  his 
fifth  resolution.  As  to  the  rest  of  them, 
they  were  commonplaces,  generally,  or 
abstractions;  in  regard  to  which,  one 
may  well  feel  himself  not  called  on  to 
vote  at  all. 

And  now,  Sir,  in  regard  to  the  tariff. 
That  is  a  long  chapter,  but  I  am  quite 
ready  to  go  over  it  with  the  honorable 
member. 

He  charges  me  with  inconsistency. 
That  may  depend  on  deciding  what  in 
consistency  is,  in  respect  to  such  sub 
jects,  and  how  it  is  to  be  proved.  I  will 
state  the  facts,  for  I  have  them  in  my 
mind  somewhat  more  fully  than  the  hon 
orable  member  has  himself  presented 
them.  Let  us  begin  at  the  beginning. 
In  1816  I  voted  against  the  tariff  law 
which  then  passed.  In  1824  I  again 
voted  against  the  tariff  law  which  was 
then  proposed,  and  which  passed.  A 
majority  of  New  England  votes,  in  1824, 
were  against  the  tariff  system.  The  bill 
received  but  one  vote  from  Massachu 
setts;  but  it  passed.  The  policy  was 
established.  New  England  acquiesced 
in  it;  conformed  her  business  and  pur 
suits  to  it;  embarked  her  capital,  and 
employed  her  labor,  in  manufactures; 
and  I  certainly  admit  that,  from  that 
time,  I  have  felt  bound  to  support  inter 
ests  thus  called  into  being,  and  into  im 
portance,  by  the  settled  policy  of  the 
government.  I  have  stated  this  often 
here,  and  often  elsewhere.  The  ground 
is  defensible,  and  I  maintain  it. 

As  to  the  resolutions  adopted  in  Bos 


ton  in  1820,  and  which  resolutions  he 
has  caused  to  be  read,  and  which  he  says 
he  presumes  I  prepared,  I  have  no  rec 
ollection  of  having  drawn  the  resolu 
tions,  and  do  not  believe  I  did.  But  I 
was  at  the  meeting,  and  addressed  the 
meeting,  and  what  I  said  on  that  occa 
sion  was  produced  here,  and  read  in  the 
Senate,  years  ago. 

The  resolutions,  Sir,  were  opposed  to 
the  commencing  of  a  high  tariff  policy. 
I  was  opposed  to  it,  and  spoke  against 
it;  the  city  of  Boston  was  opposed  to  it; 
the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  was 
opposed  to  it.  Remember,  Sir,  that  this 
was  in  1820.  This  opposition  contin 
ued  till  1824.  The  votes  all  show  this. 
But  in  1824  the  question  was  decided ; 
the  government  entered  upon  the  policy; 
it  invited  men  to  embark  their  property 
and  their  means  of  living  in  it.  Indi 
viduals  thus  encouraged  have  done  this 
to  a  great  extent;  and  therefore  I  say, 
so  long  as  the  manufactures  shall  need 
reasonable  and  just  protection  from  gov 
ernment,  I  shall  be  disposed  to  give  it 
to  them.  What  is  there,  Sir,  in  all 
this,  for  the  gentleman  to  complain  of? 
Would  he  have  us  always  oppose  the 
policy  adopted  by  the  country  on  a  great 
question?  Would  he  have  minorities 
never  submit  to  the  will  of  majorities? 

I  remember  to  have  said,  Sir,  at  the 
meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  that  protection 
appeared  to  be  regarded  as  incidental  to 
revenue,  and  that  the  incident  could  not 
be  carried  fairly  above  the  principal ;  in 
other  words,  that  duties  ought  not  to  be 
laid  for  the  mere  object  of  protection. 
I  believe  that  proposition  to  be  sub 
stantially  correct.  I  believe  that,  if  the 
power  of  protection  be  inferred  only 
from  the  revenue  power,  the  protection 
could  only  be  incidental. 

But  I  have  said  in  this  place  before, 
and  I  repeat  it  now,  that  Mr.  Madison's 
publication  after  that  period,  and  his 
declaration  that  the  Convention  did  in 
tend  to  grant  the  power  of  protection 
under  the  commercial  clause,  placed  the 
subject  in  a  new  and  a  clear  light.  I 
will  add,  Sir,  that  a  paper  drawn  up 
apparently  with  the  sanction  of  Dr. 
Franklin,  and  read  to  a  circle  of  friends 


464 


REPLY  TO  MR.   CALHOUN.  ' 


at  his  house,  on  the  eve  of  the  assem 
bling  of  the  Convention,  respecting  the 
powers  which  the  proposed  new  govern 
ment  ought  to  possess,  shows  plainly 
that,  in  regulating  commerce,  it  was  ex 
pected  that  Congress  would  adopt  a 
course  which  should  protect  the  manu 
factures  of  the  North.  He  certainly 
went  into  the  Convention  himself  under 
that  conviction. 

Well,  Sir,  and  now  what  does"  the  gen 
tleman  make  out  against  me  in  relation 
to  the  tariff?  What  laurels  does  he 
gather  in  this  part  of  Africa?  I  op 
posed  the  policy  of  the  tariff,  until  it 
had  become  the  settled  and  established 
policy  of  the  country.  I  have  never 
questioned  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  grant  protection,  except  so 
far  as  the  remark  made  in  Faneuil  Hall 
goes,  which  remark  respects  only  the 
length  to  which  protection  might  prop 
erly  be  carried,  so  far  as  the  power  is 
derived  from  the  authority  to  lay  duties 
on  imports.  But  the  policy  being  estab 
lished,  and  a  great  part  of  the  country 
having  placed  vast  interests  at  stake  in 
it,  I  have  not  disturbed  it;  on  the  con 
trary,  I  have  insisted  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  disturbed.  If  there  be  inconsist 
ency  in  all  this,  the  gentleman  is  at  lib 
erty  to  blazon  it  forth ;  let  him  see  what 
he  can  make  of  it. 

Here,  Sir,  I  cease  to  speak  of  myself; 
and  respectfully  ask  pardon  of  the  Sen 
ate  for  having  so  long  detained  it  upon 
any  thing  so  unimportant  as  what  re 
lates  merely  to  my  own  public  conduct 
and  opinions. 

Sir,  the  honorable  member  is  pleased 
to  suppose  that  our  spleen  is  excited, 
because  he  has  interfered  to  snatch  from 
us  a  victory  over  the  administration.  If 
he  means  by  this  any  personal  disap 
pointment,  I  shall  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  make  a  remark  upon  it.  If  he 
means  a  disappointment  at  his  quitting 
us  while  we  were  endeavoring  to  arrest 
the  present  policy  of  the  administration, 
why  then  I  admit,  Sir,  that  I,  for  one, 
felt  that  disappointment  deeply.  It  is 
the  policy  of  the  administration,  its 
principles,  and  its  measures,  which  I 
oppose.  It  is  not  persons,  but  things; 


not  men,  but  measures.  I  do  wish  most 
fervently  to  put  an  end  to  this  anti- 
commeitial  policy ;  and  if  the  overthrow 
of  the  policy  shall  be  followed  by  the 
political  defeat  of  its  authors,  why,  Sir, 
it  is  a  result  which  I  shall  endeavor  to 
meet  with  equanimity. 

Sir,  as  to  the  honorable  member's 
wresting  the  victory  from  us,  or  as  to  his 
ability  to  sustain  the  administration  in 
this  policy,  there  may  be  some  doubt 
about  that.  I  trust  the  citadel  will  yet 
be  stormed,  and  carried,  by  the  force  of 
public  opinion,  and  that  no  Hector  will 
be  able  to  defend  its  walls. 

But  now,  Sir,  I  must  advert  to  a 
declaration  of  the  honorable  member, 
which,  I  confess,  did  surprise  me.  The 
honorable  member  says,  that,  personally, 
he  and  myself  have  been  on  friendly 
terms,  but  that  w7e  always  differed  on 
great  constitutional  questions.  Sir,  this 
is  astounding.  And  yet  I  was  partly 
prepared  for  it;  for  I  sat  here  the  other 
day,  and  held  my  breath,  while  the  hon 
orable  gentleman  declared,  and  repeat 
ed,  that  he  had  always  belonged  to  the 
State-rights  party.  And  he  means,  by 
what  he  has  declared  to-day,  that  he  has 
always  given  to  the  Constitution  a  con 
struction  more  limited,  better  guarded, 
less  favorable  to  the  extension  of  the 
powers  of  this  government,  than  that 
which  I  have  given  to  it.  He  has  always 
interpreted  it  according  to  the  strict  doc 
trines  of  the  school  of  State  rights !  Sir, 
if  the  honorable  member  ever  belonged, 
until  very  lately,  to  the  State-rights 
party,  the  connection  was  very  much 
like  a  secret  marriage.  And  never  was 
secret  better  kept.  Not  only  were  the 
espousals  not  acknowledged,  but  all 
suspicion  was  avoided.  There  was  no 
known  familiarity,  or  even  kindness, 
between  them.  On  the  contrary,  they 
acted  like  parties  who  were  not  at  all 
fond  of  each  other's  company. 

Sir,  is  there  a  man  in  my  hearing, 
among  all  the  gentlemen  now  surround 
ing  us,  many  of  whom,  of  both  houses, 
have  been  here  many  years,  and  know 
the  gentleman  and  myself  perfectly,  — 
is  there  one  who  ever  heard,  supposed, 
or  dreamed  that  the  honorable  member 


REPLY  TO   MR.   CALHOUN. 


465 


belonged  to  the  State-rights  party  before 
the  year  1825?  Can  any  such  connec 
tion  be  proved  upon  him,  can  he  prove  it 
upon  himself,  before  that  time? 

Sir,  I  will  show  you,  before  I  resume 
my  seat,  that  it  was  not  until  after  the 
gentleman  took  his  seat  in  the  chair 
which  you  now  occupy,  that  any  public 
manifestation,  or  intimation,  was  ever 
given  by  him  of  his  having  embraced 
the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  State-rights 
party.  The  truth  is,  Sir,  the  honorable 
gentleman  had  acted  a  very  important 
and  useful  part  during  the  war.  But 
the  war  terminated.  Toward  the  end 
of  the  session  of  1814-15,  we  received 
the  news  of  peace.  This  closed  the 
Thirteenth  Congress.  In  the  fall  of 
1815,  the  Fourteenth  Congress  assem 
bled.  It  was  full  of  ability,  and  the 
honorable  gentleman  stood  high  among 
its  distinguished  members.  He  re 
mained  in  the  House,  Sir,  through  the 
whole  of  that  Congress;  and  now,  Sir, 
it  is  easy  to  show  that,  during  those  two 
years,  the  honorable  gentleman  took  a 
decided  lead  in  all  those  great  measures 
which  he  has  since  so  often  denounced 
as  unconstitutional  and  oppressive,  the 
bank,  the  tariff,  and  internal  improve 
ments.  The  war  being  terminated,  the 
gentleman's  mind  turned  itself  toward 
internal  administration  and  improve 
ment.  He  surveyed  the  whole  country, 
contemplated  its  resources,  saw  what  it 
was  capable  of  becoming,  and  held  a 
political  faith  not  so  narrow  and  con 
tracted  as  to  restrain  him  from  useful 
and  efficient  action.  He  was,  therefore, 
at  once  a  full  length  ahead  of  all  others 
in  measures  which  were  national,  and 
which  required  a  broad  and  liberal  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution.  This  is 
historic  truth.  Of  his  agency  in  the 
bank,  and  other  measures  connected  with 
the  currency,  I  have  already  spoken,  and 
I  do  not  understand  him  to  deny  any 
thing  I  have  said,  in  that  particular. 
Indeed,  I  have  said  nothing  capable  of 
denial. 

Now  allow  me  a  few  words  upon  the 
tariff.  The  tariff  of  1816  was  distinctly 
a  South  Carolina  measure.  Look  at  the 
votes,  and  you  will  see  it.  It  was  a  tariff 


for  the  benefit  of  South  Carolina  inter 
ests,  and  carried  through  Congress  by 
South  Carolina  votes  and  South  Carolina 
influence.  Even  the  minimum,  Sir,  the  so- 
much-reproached,  the  abominable  mini 
mum,  that  subject  of  angry  indignation 
and  wrathful  rhetoric,  is  of  Southern 
origin,  and  has  a  South  Carolina  parent 
age. 

Sir,  the  contest  on  that  occasion  was 
chiefly  between  the  cotton-growers  at 
home,  and  the  importers  of  cotton  fab 
rics  from  India.  These  India  fabrics 
were  made  from  the  cotton  of  that  coun 
try.  The  people  of  this  country  were 
using  cotton  fabrics  not  made  of  Ameri 
can  cotton,  and,  so  far,  they  were  di 
minishing  the  demand  for  such  cotton. 
The  importation  of  India  cottons  was 
then  very  large,  and  this  bill  was  de 
signed  to  put  an  end  to  it,  and,  with  the 
help  of  the  minimum,  it  did  put  an  end 
to  it.  The  cotton  manufactures  of  the 
North  were  then  in  their  infancy.  They 
had  some  friends  in  Congress,  but,  if  I 
recollect,  tiie  majority  of  Massachusetts 
members  and  of  New  England  members 
were  against  this  cotton  tariff  of  1816. 
I  remember  well,  that  the  main  debate 
was  between  the  importers  of  India  cot 
tons,  in  the  North,  and  the  cotton-grow 
ers  of  the  South.  The  gentleman  can 
not  deny  the  truth  of  this,  or  any  part 
of  it.  Boston  opposed  this  tariff,  and 
Salem  opposed  it,  warmly  and  vigor 
ously.  But  the  honorable  member  sup 
ported  it,  and  the  law  passed.  And 
now  be  it  always  remembered,  Sir,  that 
that  act  passed  on  the  professed  ground 
of  protection;  that  it  had  in  it  the  min 
imum  principle,  and  that  the  honorable 
member,  and  other  leading  gentlemen 
from  his  own  State,  supported  it,  voted 
for  it,  and  carried  it  through  Congress. 

And  now,  Sir,  we  come  to  the  doc 
trine  of  internal  improvement,  that 
other  usurpation,  that  other  oppression, 
which  has  come  so  near  to  justifying 
violent  disruption  of  the  government, 
and  scattering  the  fragments  of  the  Un 
ion  to  the  four  winds.  Have  the  gen 
tleman's  State-rights  opinions  always 
kept  him  aloof  from  such  unhallowed 
infringements  of  the  Constitution?  He 


466 


REPLY   TO   MR.    CALHOUN. 


says  he  always  differed  with  me  on  con 
stitutional  questions.  How  was  it  in 
this  most  important  particular?  Has  he 
here  stood  on  the  ramparts,  brandishing 
his  glittering  sword  against  assailants, 
and  holding  out  a  banner  of  defiance? 
Sir,  it  is  an  indisputable  truth,  that  he 
is  himself  the  man,  the  ipse  that  first 
brought  forward  in  Congress  a  scheme 
of  general  internal  improvement,  at  the 
expense  and  under  the  authority  of  this 
government.  He,  Sir,  is  the  very  man, 
the  ipsivsimus  ipse,  who  considerately, 
and  on  a  settled  system,  began  these  un 
constitutional  measures,  if  they  be  un- 
constitutional.  And  now  for  the  proof. 

The  act  incorporating  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  was  passed  in  April,  1816. 
For  the  privileges  of  the  charter,  the 
proprietors  of  the  bank  were  to  pay  to 
government  a  bonus,  as  it  was  called,  of 
one  million  five  hundred  thousand  dol 
lars,  in  certain  instalments.  Govern 
ment  also  took  seven  millions  in  the 
stock  of  the  bank.  Early  in  the  next 
session  of  Congress,  that  is,  in  Decem 
ber,  1816,  the  honorable  member  moved, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  that  a 
committee  be  appointed  to  consider  the 
propriety  of  setting  apart  this  bonus,  and 
also  the  dividends  on  the  stock  belong 
ing  to  the  United  States,  as  a  permanent 
fund  for  internal  improvement.  The 
committee  was  appointed,  and  the  hon 
orable  member  was  made  its  chairman. 
He  thus  originated  the  plan,  and  took 
the  lead  in  its  execution.  Shortly  after 
wards,  he  reported  a  bill  carrying  out 
the  objects  for  which  the  committee  had 
been  appointed.  This  bill  provided  that 
the  dividends  on  the  seven  millions  of 
bank  stock  belonging  to  government, 
and  also  the  whole  of  the  bonus,  should 
be  permanently  pledged  as  a  fund  for 
constructing  roads  and  canals ;  and  that 
this  fund  should  be  subject  to  such  spe 
cific  appropriations  as  Congress  might 
subsequently  make. 

This  was  the  bill;  and  this  was  the 
first  project  ever  brought  forward  in 
Congress  for  a  system  of  internal  im 
provements.  The  bill  goes  the  whole 
doctrine  at  a  single  jump.  The  Cum 
berland  Road,  it  is  true,  was  already 


in  progress ;  and  for  that  the  gentleman 
had  also  voted.  But  there  were,  and 
are  now,*peculiarities  about  that  partic 
ular  expenditure  which  sometimes  sat 
isfy  scrupulous  consciences ;  but  this  bill 
of  the  gentleman's,  without  equivoca 
tion  or  saving  clause,  without  if,  or  and, 
or  but,  occupied  the  whole  ground  at 
once,  and  announced  internal  improve 
ment  as  one  of  the  objects  of  this  gov 
ernment,  on  a  grand  and  systematic 
plan.  The  bill,  Sir,  seemed  indeed  too 
strong.  It  was  thought  by  persons  not 
esteemed  extremely  jealous  of  State 
rights  to  evince  too  little  regard  to  the 
will  of  the  States.  Several  gentlemen 
opposed  the  measure  in  that  shape,  on 
that  account;  and  among  them  Colonel 
Pickering,  then  one  of  the  Representa 
tives  from  Massachusetts.  Even  Timo 
thy  Pickering  could  not  quite  sanction, 
or  concur  in,  the  honorable  gentleman's 
doctrines  to  their  full  extent,  although 
he  favored  the  measure  in  its  general 
character.  He  therefore  prepared  an 
amendment,  as  a  substitute;  and  his 
substitute  provided  for  two  very  impor 
tant  things  not  embraced  in  the  original 
bill:- 

First,  that  the  proportion  of  the  fund 
to  be  expended  in  each  State,  respec 
tively,  should  be  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  its  inhabitants. 

Second,  that  the  money  should  be  ap 
plied  in  constructing  such  roads,  canals, 
and  so  forth,  in  the  several  States,  as 
Congress  might  direct,  with  the  assent 
of  the  State. 

This,  Sir,  was  Timothy  Pickering's 
amendment  to  the  gentleman's  bill. 
And  now,  Sir,  how  did  the  honorable 
gentleman,  who  has  always  belonged  to 
the  State-rights  party,  —  how  did  he 
treat  this  amendment,  or  this  substitute? 
Which  way  do  you  think  his  State-rights 
doctrine  led  him?  Why,  Sir,  I  will  tell 
you.  He  immediately  rose,  and  moved 
to  strike  out  the  words  "  with  the  assent 
of  the  State  "  /  Here  is  the  journal  un 
der  my  hand,  Sir;  and  here  is  the  gen 
tleman's  motion.  And  certainly,  Sir,  it 
will  be  admitted  that  this  motion  was 
not  of  a  nature  to  intimate  that  he  was 
wedded  to  State  rights.  But  the  words 


REPLY   TO   MR.   CALHOUN. 


467 


were  not  struck  out.  The  motion  did 
not  prevail.  Mr.  Pickering's  substitute 
was  adopted,  arid  the  bill  passed  the 
House  in  that  form. 

In  committee  of  the  whole  on  this 
bill,  Sir,  the  honorable  member  made  a 
very  able  speech  both  on  the  policy  of 
internal  improvements  and  the  power 
of  Congress  over  the  subject.  These 
points  were  fully  argued  by  him.  He 
spoke  of  the  importance  of  the  system, 
the  vast  good  it  would  produce,  and  its 
favorable  effect  on  the  union  of  the 
States.  "  Let  us,  then,"  said  he,  "  bind 
the  republic  together  with  a  perfect  sys 
tem  of  roads  and  canals.  Let  us  con 
quer  space.  It  is  thus  the  most  distant 
parts  of  the  republic  will  be  brought 
within  a  few  days'  travel  of  the  centre; 
it  is  thus  that  a  citizen  of  the  West  will 
read  the  news  of  Boston  still  moist  from 
the  press." 

But  on  the  power  of  Congress  to  make 
internal  improvements,  ay,  Sir,  on  the 
power  of  Congress,  hear  him !  What 
were  then  his  rules  of  construction  and 
interpretation?  How  did  he  at  that 
time  read  and  understand  the  Constitu 
tion?  Why,  Sir,  he  said  that  "he  was 
no  advocate  for  refined  arguments  on 
the  Constitution.  The  instrument  was 
not  intended  as  a  thesis  for  the  logician 
to  exercise  his  ingenuity  on.  It  ought 
to  be  construed  with  plain  good-sense." 
This  is  all  very  just,  I  think,  Sir;  and 
he  said  much  more  in  the  same  strain. 
He  quoted  many  instances  of  laws  passed, 
as  he  contended,  on  similar  principles, 
and  then  added,  that  "he  introduced 
these  instances  to  prove  the  uniform 
sense  of  Congress  and  of  the  country 
(for  they  had  not  been  objected  to)  as  to 
our  powers;  and  surely,"  said  he,  "  they 
furnish  better  evidence  of  the  true  inter 
pretation  of  the  Constitution  than  the 
most  refined  and  subtile  arguments." 

Here  you  see,  Mr.  President,  how 
little  original  I  am.  You  have  heard 
me  again  and  again  contending  in  my 
place  here  for  the  stability  of  that  which 
has  been  long  settled;  you  have  heard 
me,  till  I  dare  say  you  have  been  tired, 
insisting  that  the  sense  of  Congress,  so 
often  expressed,  and  the  sense  of  the 


country,  so  fully  shown  and  so  firmly 
established,  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
having  decided  finally  certain  constitu 
tional  questions.  You  see  now,  Sir,  what 
authority  I  have  for  this  mode  of  argu 
ment.  But  while  the  scholar  is  learning, 
the  teacher  renounces.  Will  he  apply 
his  old  doctrine  now  —  I  sincerely  wish 
he  would  —  to  the  question  of  the  bank, 
to  the  question  of  the  receiving  of  bank 
notes  by  government,  to  the  power  of 
Congress  over  the  paper  currency?  Will 
he  admit  that  these  questions  ought  to 
be  regarded  as  decided  by  the  settled 
sense  of  Congress  and  of  the  country? 
O,  no  !  Far  otherwise".  From  these 
rules  of  judgment,  and  from  the  influ 
ence  of  all  considerations  of  this  practi 
cal  nature,  the  honorable  member  now 
takes  these  questions  with  him  into  the 
upper  heights  of  metaphysics,  into  the 
regions  of  those  refinements  and  subtile 
arguments  which  he  rejected  with  so 
much  decision  in  1817,  as  appears  by 
this  speech.  He  quits  his  old  ground  of 
common-sense,  experience,  and  the  gen 
eral  understanding  of  the  country,  for  a 
flight  among  theories  and  ethereal  ab 
stractions. 

And  now,  Sir,  let  me  ask,  when  did 
the  honorable  member  relinquish  these 
early  opinions  and  principles  of  his  ? 
When  did  he  make  known  his  adhe 
sion  to  the  doctrines  of  the  State-rights 
party?  We  have  been  speaking  of 
transactions  in  1816  and  1817.  What 
the  gentleman's  opinions  then  were,  we 
have  seen.  When  did  he  announce  him 
self  a  State-rights  man?  I  have  already 
said,  Sir,  that  nobody  knew  of  his  claim 
ing  that  character  until  after  the  com 
mencement  of  1825;  and  I  have  said  so, 
because  I  have  before  me  an  address  of 
his  to  his  neighbors  at  Abbeville,  in  May 
of  that  year,  in  which  he  recounts,  very 
properly,  the  principal  incidents  in  his 
career  as  a  member  of  Congress,  and  as 
head  of  a  department;  and  in  which  he 
says  that,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  he 
had  given  his  zealous  efforts  in  favor  of 
a  restoration  of  specie  currency,  of  a  due 
protection  of  those  manufactures  which 
had  taken  root  during  the  war,  and, 
finally,  of  a  system  for  connecting  the 


468 


REPLY   TO   MR.   CALHOUN. 


various  parts  of  the  country  by  a  judi 
cious  system  of  internal  improvement. 
He  adds,  that  it  afterwards  became  his 
duty,  as  a  member  of  the  administra 
tion,  to  aid  in  sustaining  against  the 
boldest  assaults  those  very  measures 
which,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  he 
had  contributed  to  establish. 

And  now,  Sir,  since  the  honorable 
gentleman  says  he  has  differed  with  me 
on  constitutional  questions,  will  he  be 
pleased  to  say  what  constitutional  opin 
ion  I  have  ever  avowed  for  which  I  have 
not  his  express  authority?  Is  it  on  the 
bank  power?  the  tariff  power?  the  power 
of  internal  improvement?  I  have  shown 
his  votes,  his  speeches,  and  his  conduct, 
on  all  these  subjects,  up  to  the  time  when 
General  Jackson  became  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  From  that  time,  Sir,  I 
know  we  have  differed ;  but  if  there  was 
any  difference  before  that  time,  I  call 
upon  him  to  point  it  out,  to  declare  what 
was  the  occasion,  what  the  question,  and 
what  the  difference.  And  if  before  that 
period,  Sir,  by  any  speech,  any  vote, 
any  public  proceeding,  or  by  any  mode 
of  announcement  whatever,  he  gave  the 
world  to  know  that  he  belonged  to  the 
State-rights  party,  I  hope  he  will  now 
be  kind  enough  to  produce  it,  or  to  refer 
to  it,  or  to  tell  us  where  we  may  look 
for  it. 

Sir,  I  will  pursue  this  topic  no  farther. 
I  would  not  have  pursued  it  so  far,  I 
would  not  have  entered  upon  it  at  all, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  astonishment  I 
felt,  mingled,  I  confess,  with  something 
of  warmer  feeling,  when  the  honorable 
gentleman  declared  that  he  had  always 
differed  with  me  on  constitutional  ques 
tions.  Sir,  the  honorable  member  read 
a  quotation  or  two  from  a  speech  of 
mine  in  1816,  on  the  currency  or  bank 
question.  With  what  intent,  or  to  what 
end?  What  inconsistency  does  he  show? 
Speaking  of  the  legal  currency  of  the 
country,  that  is,  the  coin,  I  then  said  it 
was  in  a  good  state.  Was  not  that  true? 
I  was  speaking  of  the  legal  currency;  of 
that  which  the  law  made  a  tender.  And 
how  is  that  inconsistent  with  any  thing 
said  by  me  now,  or  ever  said  by  me?  I 
declared  then,  he  says,  that  the  fram- 


ers  of  this  government  were  hard-money 
men.  Certainly  they  were.  But  are 
not  th%  friends  of  a  convertible  paper 
hard-money  men,  in  every  practical  and 
sensible  meaning  of  the  term?  Did  I, 
in  that  speech,  or  any  other,  insist  on 
excluding  all  convertible  paper  from  the 
uses  of  society?  Most  assuredly  I  did 
not.  I  never  quite  so  far  lost  my  wits, 
I  think.  There  is  but  a  single  sentence 
in  that  speech  which  I  should  qualify  if 
I  were  to  deliver  it  again,  and  that  the 
honorable  member  has  not  noticed.  It 
is  a  paragraph  respecting  the  power  of 
Congress  over  the  circulation  of  State 
banks,  which  might  perhaps  need  ex 
planation  or  correction.  Understanding 
it  as  applicable  to  the  case  then  before 
Congress,  all  the  rest  is  perfectly  ac 
cordant  with  my  present  opinions.  It 
is  well  known  that  I  never  doubted  the 
power  of  Congress  to  create  a  bank ;  that 
I  was  always  in  favor  of  a  bank,  con 
stituted  on  proper  principles;  that  I 
voted  for  the  bank  bill  of  1815;  and 
that  I  opposed  that  of  1816  only  on  ac 
count  of  one  or  two  of  its  provisions, 
which  I  and  others  hoped  to  be  able  to 
strike  out.  I  am  a  hard-money  man, 
and  always  have  been,  and  always  shall 
be.  But  I  know  the  great  use  of  such 
bank  paper  as  is  convertible  into  hard 
money  on  demand;  which  maybe  called 
specie  paper,  and  which  is  equivalent  to 
specie  in  value,  and  much  more  con 
venient  and  useful  for  common  pur 
poses.  On  the  other  hand,  I  abhor  all 
irredeemable  paper;  all  old-fashioned 
paper  money;  all  deceptive  promises; 
every  thing,  indeed,  in  the  shape  of 
paper  issued  for  circulation,  whether  by 
government  or  individuals,  which  cannot 
be  turned  into  gold  and  silver  at  the  will 
of  the  holder. 

But,  Sir,  I  have  insisted  that  govern 
ment  is  bound  to  protect  and  regulate 
the  means  of  commerce,  to  see  that  there 
is  a  sound  currency  for  the  use  of  the 
people.  The  honorable  gentleman  asks, 
What  then  is  the  limit?  Must  Congress 
also  furnish  all  means  of  commerce? 
Must  it  furnish  weights  and  scales  and 
steelyards?  Most  undoubtedly,  Sir,  it 
must  regulate  weighty  and  measures, 


REPLY   TO   MR.   CALHOUN. 


469 


and  it  does  f,o.  But  the  answer  to  the 
general  question  is  very  obvious.  Gov 
ernment  must  furnish  all  that  which 
none  but  government  can  furnish.  Gov 
ernment  must  do  that  for  individuals 
which  individuals  cannot  do  for  them 
selves.  That  is  the  very  end  of  govern 
ment.  Why  else  have  we  a  government? 
Can  individuals  make  a  currency?  Can 
individuals  regulate  money?  The  dis 
tinction  is  as  broad  and  plain  as  the 
Pennsylvania  Avenue.  No  man  can 
mistake  it,  or  well  blunder  out  of  it. 
The  gentleman  asks  if  government  must 
furnish  for  the  people  ships,  and  boats, 
and  wagons.  Certainly  not.  The  gen 
tleman  here  only  recites  the  President's 
message  of  September.  These  things, 
and  all  such  things,  the  people  can  fur 
nish  for  themselves;  but  they  cannot 
make  a  currency;  they  cannot,  indi 
vidually,  decide  what  shall  be  the  money 
of  the  country.  That,  everybody  knows, 
is  one  of  the  prerogatives,  and  one  of  the 
duties,  of  government;  and  a  duty  which 
I  think  we  are  most  unwisely  and  im 
properly  neglecting.  We  may  as  well 
leave  the  people  to  make  war  and  to 
make  peace,  each  man  for  himself,  as 
to  leave  to  individuals  the  regulation  of 
commerce  and  currency. 

Mr.  President,  there  are  other  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  of  which  I  might  take 
notice.  But  should  I  do  so,  I  could  only 
repeat  what  I  have  already  said,  either 
now  or  heretofore.  I  shall,  therefore, 
not  now  allude  to  them.  My  principal 
purpose  in  what  I  have  said  has  been  to 
defend  myself;  that  was  my  first  object; 
and  next,  as  the  honorable  member  has 
attempted  to  take  to  himself  the  char 
acter  of  a  strict  constructionist.  and  a 
State-rights  man,  and  on  that  basis  to 
show  a  difference,  not  favorable  to  me, 
between  his  constitutional  opinions  and 
my  own,  heretofore,  it  has  been  my  in 
tention  to  show  that  the  power  to  create 
a  bank,  the  power  to  regulate  the  cur 
rency  by  other  and  direct  means,  the 
power  to  enact  a  protective  tariff,  and 
the  power  of  internal  improvement,  in 
its  broadest  sense,  are  all  powers  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  himself  has  sup 
ported,  has  acted  on,  and  in  the  exercise 


of  which,  indeed,  he  has  taken  a  distin 
guished  lead  in  the  counsels  of  Congress. 

If  this  has  been  done,  my  purpose  is 
answered.  I  do  not  wish  to  prolong  the 
discussion,  nor  to  spin  it  out  into  a  col 
loquy.  If  the  honorable  member  has 
any  thing  new  to  bring  forward;  if  he 
has  any  charge  to  make,  any  proof,  or 
any  specification ;  if  he  has  any  thing  to 
advance  against  my  opinions  or  my  con 
duct,  my  honor  or  patriotism,  I  am  still 
at  home.  I  am  here.  If  not,  then,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  this  discussion 
will  here  terminate. 

I  will  say  a  few  words,  before  I  resume 
my  seat,  on  the  motion  now  pending. 
That  motion  is  to  strike  out  the  specie- 
paying  part  of  the  bill.  I  have  a  suspi 
cion,  Sir,  that  the  motion  will  prevail.  If 
it  should,  it  will  leave  a  great  vacuum; 
and  how  shall  that  vacuum  be  filled  ? 

The  part  proposed  to  be  struck  out  is 
that  which  requires  all  debts  to  govern 
ment  to  be  paid  in  specie.  It  makes  a 
good  provision  for  government,  and  for 
public  men,  through  all  classes.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  letter  at 
the  last  session,  was  still  more  watchful 
of  the  interests  of  the  holders  of  office. 
He  assured  us,  that,  bad  as  the  times 
were,  and  notwithstanding  the  floods  of 
bad  paper  which  deluged  the  country, 
members  of  Congress  should  get  gold 
and  silver.  In  my  opinion,  Sir,  this  is 
beginning  the  use  of  good  money  in 
payments  at  the  wrong  end  of  the  list. 
If  there  be  bad  money  in  the  country,  I 
think  that  Secretaries  and  other  execu 
tive  officers,  and  especially  members  of 
Congress,  should  be  the  last  to  receive 
any  good  money ;  because  they  have  the 
power,  if  they  will  do  their  duty,  and 
exercise  it,  of  making  the  money  of  the 
country  good  for  all.  I  think,  Sir,  it 
was  a  leading  feature  in  Mr.  Burke's 
famous  bill  for  economical  reform,  that 
he  provided,  first  of  all,  for  those  who 
are  least  able  to  secure  themselves. 
Everybody  else  was  to  be  well  paid  all 
they  were  entitled  to,  before  the  minis 
ters  of  the  crown,  and  other  political 
characters,  should  have  any  thing.  This 
seems  to  me  very  right.  But  we  have  a 
precedent,  Sir,  in  our  own  country,  more 


470 


REPLY  TO   MR.   CALHOUN. 


directly  to  the  purpose;  and  as  that 
which  we  now  hope  to  strike  out  is  the 
part  of  the  bill  furnished  or  proposed 
originally  by  the  honorable  member 
from  South  Carolina,  it  will  naturally 
devolve  on  him  to  supply  its  place.  I 
wish,  therefore,  to  draw  his  particular 
attention  to  this  precedent,  which  I  am 
now  about  to  produce. 

Most  members  of  the  Senate  will  re 
member,  that  before  the  establishment 
of  this  government,  and  before  or  about 
the  time  that  the  territory  which  now 
constitutes  the  State  of  Tennessee  was 
ceded  to  Congress,  the  inhabitants  of 
the  eastern  part  of  that  territory  estab 
lished  a  government  for  themselves,  and 
called  it  the  State  of  Franklin.  They 
adopted  a  very  good  constitution,  pro 
viding  for  the  usual  branches  of  legis 
lative,  executive,  and  judicial  power. 
They  laid  and  collected  taxes,  and  per 
formed  other  usual  acts  of  legislation. 
They  had,  for  the  present,  it  is  true,  no 
maritime  possessions,  yet  they  followed 
the  common  forms  in  constituting  high 
officers;  and  their  governor  was  not  only 
captain-general  and  commander-in-chief , 
but  admiral  also,  so  that  the  navy  might 
have  a  commander  when  there  should  be 
a  navy. 

Well,  Sir,  the  currency  in  this  State 
of  Franklin  became  very  much  de 
ranged.  Specie  was  scarce,  and  equally 
scarce  were  the  notes  of  specie-paying 
banks.  But  the  legislature  did  not  pro 
pose  any  divorce  of  government  and 
people;  they  did  not  seek  to  establish 
two  currencies,  one  for  men  in  office, 
and  one  for  the  rest  of  the  community. 
They  were  content  with  neighbor's  fare. 
It  became  necessary  to  pass  what  we 
should  call  now-a-days  the  civil-list  ap 
propriation  bill.  They  passed  such  a 
bill;  and  when  we  shall  have  made  a 
void  in  the  bill  now  before  us  by  strik 
ing  out  specie  payments  for  government, 
I  recommend  to  its  friends  to  fill  the 
gap,  by  inserting,  if  not  the  same  pro 
visions  as  were  in  the  law  of  the  State 
of  Franklin,  at  least  something  in  the 
same  spirit. 

The  preamble  of  that  law,  Sir,  be 
gins  by  reciting,  that  the  collection  of 


taxes  in  specie  had  become  very  oppres 
sive  to^the  good  people  of  the  common 
wealth,  for  the  want  of  a  circulating 
medium.  A  parallel  case  to  ours,  Sir, 
exactly.  It  recites  further,  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  hear,  at 
all  times,  the  prayer  of  their  constit 
uents,  and  apply  as  speedy  a  remedy 
as  lies  in  their  power.  These  senti 
ments  are  very  just,  and  I  sincerely  wish 
there  was  a  thorough  disposition  here  to 
adopt  the  like. 

Acting  under  the  influence  of  these 
sound  opinions,  Sir,  the  legislature  of 
Franklin  passed  a  law  for  the  support  of 
the  civil  list,  which,  as  it  is  short,  I  will 
beg  permission  to  read.  It  is  as  fol 
lows  :  — 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  Franklin,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted 
by  the  authority  of  the  same,  That,  from  the 
first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1789,  the  sala 
ries  of  the  civil  officers  of  this  common 
wealth  be  as  follows,  to  wit : 

"  His  excellency,  the  governor,  per  annum, 
one  thousand  deer-skins ;  his  honor,  the 
chief  justice,  five  hundred  do.  do. ;  the  at 
torney-general,  five  hundred  do.  do. ;  secre 
tary  to  his  excellency  the  governor,  five 
hundred  raccoon  do. ;  the  treasurer  of  the 
State,  four  hundred  and  fifty  otter  do. ; 
each  county  clerk,  three  hundred  beaver 
do. ;  clerk  of  the  house  of  commons,  two 
hundred  raccoon  do. ;  members  of  assem 
bly,  per  diem,  three  do.  do. ;  justice's  fee 
for  signing  a  warrant,  one  muskrat  do. ;  to 
the  constable,  for  serving  a  warrant,  one 
mink  do. 

"  Enacted  into  a  law  this  18th  day  of  Oc 
tober,  1788,  under  the  great  seal  of  the 
State. 

"  Witness  his  excellency,  &c. 
"  Governor,  captain-general,  commander-in-chief, 
and  admiral  in  and  over  said  State." 

This,  Sir,  is  the  law,  the  spirit  of 
which  I  commend  to  gentlemen.  I  will 
not  speak  of  the  appropriateness  of  these 
several  allowances  for  the  civil  list.  But 
the  example  is  good,  and  I  am  of  opin 
ion  that,  until  Congress  shall  perform 
its  duty,  by  seeing  that  the  country  en 
joys  a  good  currency,  the  same  medium 
which  the  people  are  obliged  to  use, 
whether  it  be  skins  or  rags,  is  good 
enough  for  its  own  members. 


A    UNIFORM    SYSTEM    OF    BANKRUPTCY. 

FROM  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON 
THE  18TH  OF  MAY,  1840,  ON  THE  PROPOSED  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  BILL 
ESTABLISHING  A  UNIFORM  SYSTEM  OF  BANKRUPTCY. 


LET  me  remind  you,  then,  in  the  first 
place,  Sir,  that,  commercial  as  the  coun 
try  is,  and  having  experienced  as  it 
has  done,  and  experiencing  as  it  now 
does,  great  vicissitudes  of  trade  and 
business,  it  is  almost  forty  years  since 
any  law  has  been  in  force  by  which  any 
honest  man,  failing  in  business,  could 
be  effectually  discharged  from  debt  by 
surrendering  his  property.  The  former 
bankrupt  law  was  repealed  on  the  19th 
of  December,  1803.  From  that  day  to 
this,  the  condition  of  an  insolvent,  how 
ever  honest  and  worthy,  has  been  ut 
terly  hopeless,  so  far  as  he  depended  on 
any  legal  mode  of  relief.  This  state 
of  things  has  arisen  from  the  peculiar 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  from  the  omission 
by  Congress  to  exercise  this  branch 
of  its  constitutional  power.  By  the 
Constitution,  the  States  are  prohib 
ited  from  passing  laws  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts.  Bankrupt  laws 
impair  the  obligation  of  contracts,  if 
they  discharge  the  bankrupt  from  his 
debts  without  payment.  The  States, 
therefore,  cannot  pass  such  laws.  The 
power,  then,  is  taken  from  the  States, 
and  placed  in  our  hands.  It  is  true  that 
it  has  been  decided,  that,  in  regard  to 
contracts  entered  into  after  the  passage 
of  any  State  bankrupt  law,  between  the 
citizens  of  the  State  having  such  law, 
and  sued  in  the  State  courts,  a  State 
discharge  may  prevail.  So  far,  effect 


has  been  given  to  State  laws.  I  have 
great  respect,  habitually,  for  judicial 
decisions  ;  but  it  has  nevertheless,  I 
must  say,  always  appeared  to  me  that 
the  distinctions  on  which  these  decisions 
are  founded  are  slender,  and  that  they 
evade,  without  answering,  the  objec 
tions  founded  on  the  great  political  and 
commercial  objects  intended  to  be  se 
cured  by  this  part  of  the  Constitution. 
But  these  decisions,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  afford  no  effectual  relief.  The 
qualifications  and  limitations  which  I 
have  stated  render  them  useless,  as  to 
the  purpose  of  a  general  discharge.  So 
much  of  the  concerns  of  every  man  of 
business  is  with  citizens  of  other  States 
than  his  own,  and  with  foreigners,  that 
the  partial  extent  to  which  the  validity 
of  State  discharges  reaches  is  of  little 
benefit. 

The  States,  then,  cannot  pass  effect 
ual  bankrupt  laws;  that  is,  effectual  for 
the  discharge  of  the  debtor.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  most,  if  not  all,  the  States 
would  now  pass  such  laws,  if  they  had 
the  power  ;  although  their  legislation 
would  be  various,  interfering,  and  full 
of  all  the  evils  which  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  intended  to  pro 
vide  against.  But  they  have  not  the 
power;  Congress,  which  has  the  power, 
does  not  exercise  it.  This  is  the  pe 
culiarity  of  our  condition.  The  States 
would  pass  bankrupt  laws,  but  they  can 
not;  we  can,  but  we  will  not.  And  be- 


472 


A   UNIFORM   SYSTEM   OF  BANKRUPTCY. 


tween  this  want  of  power  in  the  States 
and  want  of  will  in  Congress,  unfortu 
nate  insolvents  are  left  to  hopeless  bond 
age.  There  are  probably  one  or  two  hun 
dred  thousand  debtors,  honest,  sober, 
and  industrious,  who  drag  out  lives  use 
less  to  themselves,  useless  to  their  fam 
ilies,  and  useless  to  their  country,  for  no 
reason  but  that  they  cannot  be  legally 
discharged  from  debts  in  which  misfor 
tunes  have  involved  them,  and  which 
there  is  no  possibility  of  their  ever  pay 
ing.  I  repeat,  again,  that  these  cases 
have  now  been  accumulating  for  a  whole 
generation. 

It  is  true  they  are  not  imprisoned; 
but  there  may  be,  and  there  are,  re 
straint  and  bondage  outside  the  walls  of 
the  jail,  as  well  as  in.  Their  power  of 
earning  is,  in  truth,  taken  away,  their 
faculty  of  useful  employment  is  par 
alyzed,  and  hope  itself  become  extin 
guished.  Creditors,  generally,  are  not 
inhuman  or  unkind;  but  there  will  be 
found  some  who  hold  on,  and  the  more 
a  debtor  struggles  to  free  himself,  the 
more  they  feel  encouraged  to  hold  on. 
The  mode  of  reasoning  is,  that,  the 
more  honest  the  debtor  may  be,  the 
more  industrious,  the  more  disposed  to 
struggle  and  bear  up  against  his  misfor 
tunes,  the  greater  the  chance  is,  that,  in 
the  end,  especially  if  the  humanity  of 
others  shall  have  led  them  to  release 
him,  their  own  debts  may  be  finally  re 
covered. 

Now,  in  this  state  of  our  constitu 
tional  powers  and  duties,  in  this  state 
of  our  laws,  and  with  this  actually  ex 
isting  condition  of  so  many  insolvents 
before  us,  it  is  not  too  serious  to  ask 
every  member  of  the  Senate  to  put  it  to 
his  own  conscience  to  say,  whether  we 
are  not  bound  to  exercise  our  constitu 
tional  duty.  Can  we  abstain  from  ex 
ercising  it?  The  States  give  to  their 
own  laws  all  the  effect  they  can.  This 
shows  that  they  desire  the  power  to  be 
exercised.  Several  States  have,  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  made  known  their 
earnest  wishes  to  Congress.  If  we  still 
refuse,  what  is  to  be  done?  Many  of 
these  insolvent  persons  are  young  men 
with  young  families.  Like  other  men, 


they  have  capacities  both  for  action  and 
enjoyment.  Are  we  to  stifle  all  these 
for  ever1?  Are  we  to  suffer  all  these 
persons,  many  of  them  meritorious  and 
respectable,  to  be  pressed  to  the  earth 
for  ever,  by  a  load  of  hopeless  debt? 
The  existing  diversities  and  contradic 
tions  of  State  laws  on  the  subject  ad 
mirably  illustrate  the  objects  of  this 
part  of  the.  Constitution,  as  stated  by 
Mr.  Madison;  and  they  form  that  pre 
cise  case  for  which  the  clause  was  in 
serted.  The  very  evil  intended  to  be  pro 
vided  against  is  before  us,  and  around  us, 
and  pressing  us  on  all  sides.  How  can 
we,  how  dare  we,  make  a  perfect  dead 
letter  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution, 
which  we  have  sworn  to  support?  The 
insolvent  persons  have  not  the  power  of 
locomotion.  They  cannot  travel  from 
State  to  State.  They  are  prisoners.  To 
my  certain  knowledge,  there  are  many 
who  cannot  even  come  here  to  the  seat 
of  government,  to  present  their  peti 
tions  to  Congress,  so  great  is  their  fear 
that  some  creditor  will  dog  their  heels, 
and  arrest  them  in  some  intervening 
State,  or  in  this  District,  in  the  hope 
that  friends  will  appear  to  save  them, 
by  payment  of  the  debt,  from  imprison 
ment. 

These  are  truths;  not  creditable  to 
the  country,  but  they  are  truths.  I  am 
sorry  for  their  existence.  Sir,  there 
is  one  crime,  quite  too  common,  which 
the  laws  of  man  do  not  punish,  but 
which  cannot  escape  the  justice  of  God; 
and  that  is,  the  arrest  and  confinement 
of  a  debtor  by  his  creditor,  with  no  mo 
tive  on  earth  but  the  hope  that  some 
friend,  or  some  relative,  perhaps  almost 
as  poor  as  himself,  his  mother  it  may 
be,  or  his  sisters,  or  his  daughters,  will 
give  up  all  their  own  little  pittance,  and 
make  beggars  of  themselves,  to  save  him 
from  the  horrors  of  a  loathsome  jail. 
Human  retribution  cannot  reach  this 
guilt;  human  feeling  may  not  penetrate 
the  flinty  heart  that  perpetrates  it ;  but 
an  hour  is  surely  coming,  with  more 
than  human  retribution  on  its  wings, 
when  that  flint  shall  be  melted,  either 
by  the  power  of  penitence  and  grace,  or 
in  the  fires  of  remorse. 


A   UNIFORM   SYSTEM   OF  BANKRUPTCY. 


473 


Sir,  I  verily  believe  that  the  power  of 
perpetuating  debts  against  debtors,  for 
no  substantial  good  to  the  creditor  him 
self,  and  the  power  of  imprisonment  for 
debt,  at  least  as  it  existed  in  this  coun 
try  ten  years  ago,  have  imposed  more 
restraint  on  personal  liberty  than  the 
law  of  debtor  and  creditor  imposes  in 
any  other  Christian  and  commercial 
country.  If  any  public  good  were  at 
tained,  any  high  political  object  an 
swered,  by  such  laws,  there  might  be 
some  reason  for  counselling  submission 
and  sufferance  to  individuals.  But  the 
result  is  bad,  every  way.  It  is  bad  to  the 
public  and  to  the  country,  which  loses 
the  efforts  and  the  industry  of  so  many 
useful  and  capable  citizens.  It  is  bad 
to  creditors,  because  there  is  no  secu 
rity  against  preferences,  no  principle  of 
equality,  and  no  encouragement  for  hon 
est,  fair,  and  seasonable  assignments  of 
effects.  As  to  the  debtor,  however  good 
his  intentions  or  earnest  his  endeavors, 
it  subdues  his  spirit  and  degrades  him 
in  his  own  esteem;  and  if  he  attempts 
any  thing  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
food  and  clothing  for  his  family,  he  is 
driven  to  unworthy  shifts  and  disguises, 
to  the  use  of  other  persons'  names,  to 
the  adoption  of  the  character  of  agent, 
and  various  other  contrivances,  to  keep 
the  little  earnings  of  the  day  from  the 
reach  of  his  creditors.  Fathers  act  in 
the  name  of  their  sons,  sons  act  in  the 
name  of  their  fathers;  all  constantly 
exposed  to  the  greatest  temptation  to 
misrepresent  facts  and  to  evade  the 
law,  if  creditors  should  strike.  All 
this  is  evil,  unmixed  evil.  And  what 
is  it  all  for?  Of  what  benefit  to  any 
body?  Who  likes  it?  Who  wishes 
it?  What  class  of  creditors  desire  it? 
What  consideration  of  public  good  de 
mands  it? 

Sir,  we  talk  much,  and  talk  warmly, 
of  political  liberty;  and  well  we  may, 
for  it  is  among  the  chief  of  public  bless 
ings.  But  who  can  enjoy  political  liberty 
if  he  is  deprived,  permanently,  of  per 
sonal  liberty,  and  the  exercise  of  his  own 
industry  and  his  own  faculties?  To 
those  unfortunate  individuals,  doomed 
to  the  everlasting  bondage  of  debt,  what 


is  it  that  we  have  free  institutions  of 
government?  What  is  it  that  we  have 
public  and  popular  assemblies?  What 
is  even  this  Constitution  itself  to  them, 
in  its  actual  operation,  and  as  we  now 
administer  it?  What  is  its  aspect  to 
them,  but  an  aspect  of  stern,  implacable 
severity?  an  aspect  of  refusal,  denial, 
and  frowning  rebuke?  nay,  more  than 
that,  an  aspect  not  only  of  austerity  and 
rebuke,  but,  as  they  must  think  it,  of 
plain  injustice  also,  since  it  will  not  re 
lieve  them,  nor  suffer  others  to  give  them 
relief?  What  love  can  they  feel  towards 
the  Constitution  of  their  country,  which 
has  taken  the  power  of  striking  off  their 
bonds  from  their  own  paternal  State 
governments,  and  yet,  inexorable  to  all 
the  cries  of  justice  and  of  mercy,  holds 
it  unexercised  in  its  own  fast  and  unre 
lenting  grasp?  They  find  themselves 
bondsmen,  because  we  will  not  exe 
cute  the  commands  of  the  Constitution; 
bondsmen  to  debts  they  cannot  pay, 
and  which  all  know  they  cannot  pay, 
and  which  take  away  the  power  of  sup 
porting  themselves.  Other  slaves  have 
masters,  charged  with  the  duty  of  sup 
port  and  protection ;  but  their  masters 
neither  clothe,  nor  feed,  nor  shelter; 
they  only  bind. 

But,  Sir,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  Con 
stitution.  The  Constitution  is  benefi 
cent  as  well  as  wise  in  all  its  provisions 
on  this  subject.  The  fault,  I  must  be 
allowed  to  say,  is  in  us,  who  have  suf 
fered  ourselves  quite  too  long  to  neglect 
the  duty  incumbent  upon  us.  The  time 
will  come,  Sir,  when  we  shall  look  back 
and  wonder  at  the  long  delay  of  this  just 
and  salutary  measure.  We  shall  then 
feel  as  we  now  feel  when  we  reflect  on 
that  progress  of  opinion  which  has  al 
ready  done  so  much  on  another  con 
nected  subject ;  I  mean  the  abolition  of 
imprisonment  for  debt.  What  should 
we  say  at  this  day,  if  it  were  proposed 
to  re-establish  arrest  and  imprisonment 
for  debt,  as  it  existed  in  most  of  the 
States  even  so  late  as  twenty  years  ago? 
I  mean  for  debt  alone,  for  mere,  pure 
debt,  without  charge  or  suspicion  of 
fraud  or  falsehood. 

Sir,  it  is  about  that  length  of  time,  I 


474 


A  UNIFORM   SYSTEM  OF  BANKRUPTCY. 


think,  since  you,1  who  now  preside  over 
our  deliberations,  began  here  your  efforts 
for  the  abolition  of  imprisonment  for 
debt ;  and  a  better  work  was  never  be 
gun  in  the  Capitol.  Ever  remembered 
and  ever  honored  be  that  noble  effort! 
You  drew  the  attention  of  the  public  to 
the  question,  whether,  in  a  civilized  and 
Christian  country,  debt  incurred  with 
out  fraud,  and  remaining  unpaid  with 
out  fault,  is  a  crime,  and  a  crime  fit  to 
be  punished  by  denying  to  the  offender 
the  enjoyment  of  the  light  of  heaven, 
and  shutting  him  up  within  four  walls. 
Your  own  good  sense,  and  that  instinct 
of  right  feeling  which  often  outruns  sa 
gacity,  carried  you  at  once  to  a  result  to 
which  others  were  more  slowly  brought, 
but  to  which  nearly  all  have  at  length 
been  brought,  by  reason,  reflection,  and 
argument.  Your  movement  led  the  way ; 
it  became  an  example,  and  has  had  a 
powerful  effect  on  both  sides  of  the  At 
lantic.  Imprisonment  for  debt,  or  even 
arrest  and  holding  to  bail  for  mere 
debt,  no  longer  exists  in  England;  and 
former  laws  on  the  subject  have  been 
greatly  modified  and  mitigated,  as  we 
all  know,  in  our  States.  "  Abolition 
of  imprisonment  for  debt,"  your  own 
words  in  the  title  of  your  own  bill, 
has  become  the  title  of  an  act  of  Par 
liament. 

Sir,  I  am  glad  of  an  occasion  to  pay 
you  the  tribute  of  my  sincere  respect  for 
these  your  labors  in  the  cause  of  human 
ity  and  enlightened  policy.  For  these 
labors  thousands  of  grateful  hearts  have 
thanked  you ;  and  other  thousands  of 
hearts,  not  yet  full  of  joy  for  the  accom 
plishment  of  their  hopes,  full,  rather,  at 
the  present  moment,  of  deep  and  dis 
tressing  anxiety,  have  yet  the  pleasure 
to  know  that  your  advice,  your  counsel, 
and  your  influence  will  all  be  given  in 
favor  of  what  is  intended  for  their  relief 
in  the  bill  before  us. 

Mr.  President,  let  us  atone  for  the 
omissions  of  the  past  by  a  prompt  and 
efficient  discharge  of  present  duty.  The 
demand  for  this  measure  is  not  partial 
or  local.  It  comes  to  us,  earnest  and 

1  Hon.  Richard  M.  Johnson,  Vice-President 
of  the  United  States. 


loud,  from  all  classes  and  all  quarters. 
The  tinje  is  come  when  we  must  answer 
it  to  our  own  consciences,  if  we  suffer 
longer  delay  or  postponement.  High 
hopes,  high  duties,  and  high  responsibili 
ties  concentrate  themselves  on  this  meas 
ure  and  this  moment.  With  a  power 
to  pass  a  bankrupt  law,  which  no  other 
legislature  in  the  country  possesses,  with 
a  power  of  'giving  relief  to  many,  doing 
injustice  to  none,  I  again  ask  every  man 
who  hears  me,  if  he  can  content  himself 
without  an  honest  attempt  to  exercise 
that  power.  We  may  think  it  would  be 
better  to  leave  the  power  with  the  States ; 
but  it  was  not  left  with  the  States ;  they 
have  it  not,  and  we  cannot  give  it  to 
them.  It  is  in  our  hands,  to  be  exer 
cised  by  us,  or  to  be  for  ever  useless  and 
lifeless.  Under  these  circumstances, 
does  not  every  man's  heart  tell  him  that 
he  has  a  duty  to  discharge?  If  the  final 
vote  shall  be  given  this  day,  and  if  that 
vote  shall  leave  thousands  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  and  their  families,  in  hopeless 
and  helpless  distress,  to  everlasting  sub 
jection  to  irredeemable  debt,  can  we  go 
to  our  beds  with  satisfied  consciences? 
Can  we  lay  our  heads  upon  our  pillows, 
and,  without  self-reproach,  supplicate 
the  Almighty  Mercy  to  forgive  us  our 
debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors?  Sir, 
let  us  meet  the  unanimous  wishes  of  the 
country,  and  proclaim  relief  to  the  un 
fortunate  throughout  the  land.  What 
should  hinder?  What  should  stay  our 
hands  from  this  good  work?  Creditors 
do  not  oppose  it,  —  they  apply  for  it; 
debtors  solicit  it,  with  an  importunity, 
earnestness,  and  anxiety  not  to  be  de 
scribed;  the  Constitution  enjoins  it;  and 
all  the  considerations  of  justice,  policy, 
and  propriety,  which  are  wrapped  up  in 
the  phrase  Public  Duty,  demand  it,  as  I 
think,  and  demand  it  loudly  and  impera 
tively,  at  our  hands.  Sir,  let  us  gratify 
the  whole  country,  for  once,  with  the 
joyous  clang  of  chains,  joyous  because 
heard  falling  from  the  limbs  of  men. 
The  wisest  among  those  whom  I  address 
can  desire  nothing  more  beneficial  than 
this  measure,  or  more  universally  de 
sired  ;  and  he.  who  is  youngest  may  not 
expect  to  live  long  enough  to  see  a  bet- 


A  UNIFORM   SYSTEM   OF  BANKRUPTCY. 


475 


ter  opportunity  of  causing  new  pleasures 
and  a  happiness  long  untasted  to  spring 
up  in  the  hearts  of  the  poor  and  the 
humble.  How  many  husbands  and  fa 
thers  are  looking  with  hopes  which  they 
cannot  suppress,  and  yet  hardly  dare  to 
cherish,  for  the  result  of  this  debate! 
How  many  wives  and  mothers  will  pass 
sleepless  and  feverish  nights,  until  they 
know  whether  they  and  their  families 
shall  be  raised  from  poverty,  despond 


ency,  and  despair,  and  restored  again 
to  the  circles  of  industrious,  indepen 
dent,  and  happy  life! 

Sir,  let  it  be  to  the  honor  of  Congress 
that,  in  these  days  of  political  strife  and 
controversy,  we  have  laid  aside  for  once 
the  sin  that  most  easily  besets  us,  and, 
with  unanimity  of  counsel,  and  with 
singleness  of  heart  and  of  purpose,  have 
accomplished  for  our  country  one  meas 
ure  of  unquestionable  good. 


"THE   LOG   CABIN   CANDIDATE." 

FROM  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  THE  GREAT  MASS  MEETING  AT  SARATOGA, 
NEW  YORK,   ON  THE  12m  OF  AUGUST,  1840. 


BUT  it  is  the  cry  and  effort  of  the 
times  to  stimulate  those  who  are  called 
poor  against  those  who  are  called  rich ; 
and  yet,  among  those  who  urge  this  cry, 
and  seek  to  profit  by  it,  there  is  be 
trayed  sometimes  an  occasional  sneer  at 
whatever  savors  of  humble  life.  Wit 
ness  the  reproach  against  a  candi 
date  now  before  the  people  for  their 
highest  honors,  that  a  log  cabin,  with 
plenty  of  hard  cider,  is  good  enough  for 
him! 

It  appears  to  some  persons,  that  a 
great  deal  too  much  use  is  made  of  the 
symbol  of  the  log  cabin.  No  man  of 
sense  supposes,  certainly,  that  the  hav 
ing  lived  in  a  log  cabin  is  any  further 
proof  of  qualification  for  the  Presidency, 
than  as  it  creates  a  presumption  that 
any  one  who,  rising  from  humble  con 
dition,  or  under  unfavorable  circum 
stances,  has  been  able  to  attract  a  con 
siderable  degree  of  public  attention,  is 
possessed  of  reputable  qualities,  moral 
and  intellectual. 

But  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  this 
matter  of  the  log  cabin  originated,  not 
with  the  friends  of  the  Whig  candidate, 
but  with  his  enemies.  Soon  after  his 
nomination  at  Harrisburg,  a  writer  for 
one  of  the  leading  administration  papers 
spoke  of  his  "  log  cabin,"  and  his  use  of 
"  hard  cider,"  by  way  of  sneer  and  re 
proach.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
(for  pretenders  are  apt  to  be  thrown  off 
their  guard,)  this  taunt  at  humble  life 


proceeded  from  the  party  which  claims 
a  monopoly  of  the  purest  democracy. 
The  whole  party  appeared  to  enjoy  it, 
or,  at  least,  they  countenanced  it  by  si 
lent  acquiescence;  for  I  do  not  know 
that,  to  this  day,  any  eminent  indi 
vidual  or  any  leading  newspaper  at 
tached  to  the  administration  has  rebuked 
this  scornful  jeering  at  the  supposed 
humble  condition  or  circumstances  in 
life,  past  or  present,  of  a  worthy  man 
and  a  war-worn  soldier.  But  it  touched 
a  tender  point  in  the  public  feeling.  It 
naturally  roused  indignation.  What  was 
intended  as  reproach  was  immediately 
seized  on  as  merit.  "Be  it  so!  Be  it 
so!  "  was  the  instant  burst  of  the  public 
voice.  "  Let  him  be  the  log  cabin  can 
didate.  What  you  say  in  scorn,  we  will 
shout  with  all  our  lungs.  From  this 
day  forward,  wre  have  our  cry  of  rally; 
and  we  shall  see  whether  he  who  has 
dwelt  in  one  of  the  rude  abodes  of  the 
West  may  not  become  the  best  house  in 
the  country!  " 

All  this  is  natural,  and  springs  from 
sources  of  just  feeling.  Other  things, 
Gentlemen,  have  had  a  similar  origin. 
We  all  know  that  the  term  "Whig" 
was  bestowed  in  derision,  two  hundred 
years  ago,  on  those  who  were  thought 
too  fond  of  liberty ;  and  our  national  air 
of  "  Yankee  Doodle  "  was  composed  by 
British  officers,  in  ridicule  of  the  Amer 
ican  troops.  Yet,  erelong,  the  last  of 
the  British  armies  laid  down  its  arms  at 


"THE  LOG  CABIN  CANDIDATE.' 


477 


Yorktown,  while  this  same  air  was  play 
ing  in  the  ears  of  officers  and  men. 
Gentlemen,  it  is  only  shallow-minded 
pretenders  who  either  make  distin 
guished  origin  matter  of  personal  merit, 
or  obscure  origin  matter  of  personal  re 
proach.  Taunt  and  scoffing  at  the  hum 
ble  condition  of  early  life  affect  nobody, 
in  this  country,  but  those  who  are  fool 
ish  enough  to  indulge  in  them,  and  they 
are  generally  sufficiently  punished  by 
public  rebuke.  A  man  who  is  not 
ashamed  of  himself  need  not  be  ashamed 
of  his  early  condition. 

Gentlemen,  it  did  not  happen  to  me 
to  be  born  in  a  log  cabin ;  but  my  elder 
brothers  and  sisters  were  born  in  a  log 
cabin,  raised  amid  the  snow-drifts  of 
New  Hampshire,  at  a  period  so  early 
that,  when  the  smoke  first  rose  from  its 
rude  chimney,  and  curled  over  the  frozen 
hills,  there  was  no  similar  evidence  of  a 
white  man's  habitation  between  it  and 
the  settlements  on  the  rivers  of  Canada. 


Its  remains  still  exist.  I  make  to  it  an 
annual  visit.  I  carry  my  children  to  it, 
to  teach  them  the  hardships  endured  by 
the  generations  which  have  gone  before 
them.  I  love  to  dwell  on  the  tender 
recollections,  the  kindred  ties,  the  early 
affections,  and  the  touching  narratives 
and  incidents,  which  mingle  with  all  I 
know  of  this  primitive  family  abode.  I 
weep  to  think  that  none  of  those  who 
inhabited  it  are  now  among  the  living; 
and  if  ever  I  am  ashamed  of  it,  or  if  I 
ever  fail  in  affectionate  veneration  for 
him  who  reared  it,  and  defended  it 
against  savage  violence  and  destruction, 
cherished  all  the  domestic  virtues  be 
neath  its  roof,  and,  through  the  fire  and 
blood  of  a  seven  years'  revolutionary 
wrar,  shrunk  from  no  danger,  no  toil,  no 
sacrifice,  to  serve  his  country,  and  to 
raise  his  children  to  a  condition  better 
than  his  own,  may  my  name  and  the 
name  of  my  posterity  be  blotted  for  ever 
from  the  memory  of  mankind! 


ADDRESS   TO   THE  LADIES   OF   RICHMOND. 

REMARKS  AT   A    PUBLIC    RECEPTION    BY    THE    LADIES    OF    RICHMOND,    VIR 
GINIA,   ON  THE  5TH   OF  OCTOBER,   1840. 


[THE  visit  of  Mr.  Webster  to  Richmond 
was  short,  and  his  public  engagements  so 
numerous,  as  to  put  it  out  of  his  power  to 
return  the  calls  of  his  friends,  or  to  pay  his 
respects  to  their  families.  It  was  accord 
ingly  proposed  that  the  ladies  who  might 
desire  to  do  so  should  assemble  in  the 
"  Log  Cabin,"  and  that  he  should  there  pay 
his  respects  to  them  collectively.  The 
meeting  was  large,  and  the  building  quite 
full.  On  being  introduced  to  them  in  a 
few  appropriate  remarks,  by  Mr.  Lyons, 
Mr.  Webster  addressed  them  in  the  follow 
ing  speech.] 

LADIKS,  — I  am  very  sure  I  owe  the 
pleasure  I  now  enjoy  to  your  kind  dis 
position,  which  has  given  me  the  oppor 
tunity  to  present  my  thanks  and  my 
respects  to  you  thus  collective^,  since 
the  shortness  of  my  stay  in  the  city  does 
not  allow  me  the  happiness  of  calling 
upon  those,  severally  and  individually, 
from  members  of  whose  families  I  have 
received  kindness  and  notice.  And,  in 
the  first  place,  I  wish  to  express  to  you 
my  deep  and  hearty  thanks,  as  I  have 
endeavored  to  do  to  your  fathers,  your 
husbands,  and  your  brothers,  for  the 
unbounded  hospitality  I  have  received 
ever  since  I  came  among  you.  This  is 
registered,  I  assure  you,  in  a  grateful 
heart,  in  characters  of  an  enduring  na 
ture.  The  rough  contests  of  the  politi 
cal  world  are  not  suited  to  the  dignity 
and  the  delicacy  of  your  sex;  but  you 
possess  the  intelligence  to  know  how 
much  of  that  happiness  which  you  are 
entitled  to  hope  for,  both  for  yourselves 
and  for  your  children,  depends  on  the 
right  administration  of  government,  and 


a  proper  tone  of  public  morals.  That 
is  a  subject  on  which  the  moral  percep 
tions  of  woman  are  both  quicker  and 
juster  than  those  of  the  other  sex.  I 
do  not  speak  of  that  administration  of 
government  whose  object  is  merely  the 
protection  of  industry,  the  preservation 
of  civil  liberty,  and  the  securing  to  en 
terprise  of  its  due  reward.  I  speak  of 
government  in  a  somewhat  higher  point 
of  view;  I  speak  of  it  in  regard  to  its 
influence  on  the  morals  and  sentiments 
of  the  community.  We  live  in  an  age 
distinguished  for  great  benevolent  ex 
ertion,  in  which  the  affluent  are  conse 
crating  the  means  they  possess  to  the 
endowment  of  colleges  and  academies, 
to  the  building  of  churches,  to  the  sup 
port  of  religion  and  religious  worship,  to 
the  encouragement  of  schools,  lyceums, 
and  athenaeums,  and  other  means  of 
general  popular  instruction.  This  is  all 
well;  it  is  admirable;  it  augurs  well  for 
the  prospects  of  ensuing  generations. 
But  I  have  sometimes  thought,  that, 
amidst  all  this  activity  and  zeal  of  the 
good  and  the  benevolent,  the  influence 
of  government  on  the  morals  and  on 
the  religious  feelings  of  the  commu 
nity  is  apt  to  be  overlooked  or  under 
rated.  I  speak,  of  course,  of  its  in 
direct  influence,  of  the  power  of  its 
example,  and  the  general  tone  which  it 
inspires. 

A  popular  government,  in  all  these 
respects,  is  a  most  powerful  institution; 
more  powerful,  as  it  has  sometimes  ap 
peared  to  me,  than  the  influence  of  most 


ADDRESS   TO   THE  LADIES    OF  RICHMOND. 


479 


other  human  institutions  put  together, 
either  for  good  or  for  evil,  according  to 
its  character.  Its  example,  its  tone, 
whether  of  regard  or  disregard  for  moral 
obligation,  is  most  important  to  human 
happiness ;  it  is  among  those  things 
which  most  affect  the  political  morals  of 
mankind,  and  their  general  morals  also. 
I  advert  to  this,  because  there  has  been 
put  forth,  in  modern  times,  the  false 
maxim,  that  there  is  one  morality  for 
politics,  and  another  morality  for  other 
things;  that,  in  their  political  conduct 
to  their  opponents,  men  may  say  and  do 
that  which  they  would  never  think  of 
saying  or  doing  in  the  personal  relations 
of  private  life.  There  has  been  openly 
announced  a  sentiment,  which  I  con 
sider  as  the  very  essence  of  false  moral 
ity,  which  declares  that  "  all  is  fair  in 
politics."  If  a  man  speaks  falsely  or 
calumniously  of  his  neighbor,  and  is 
reproached  for  the  offence,  the  ready 
excuse  is  this:  "  It  was  in  relation  to 
public  and  political  matters;  I  cherished 
no  personal  ill-will  whatever  against 
that  individual,  but  quite  the  contrary; 
I  spoke  of  my  adversary  merely  as  a 
political  man."  In  my  opinion,  the  day 
is  coming  when  falsehood  will  stand  for 
falsehood,  and  calumny  will  be  treated  as 
a  breach  of  the  commandment,  whether 
it  be  committed  politically  or  in  the  con 
cerns  of  private  life. 

It  is  by  the  promulgation  of  sound 
morals  in  the  community,  and  more  es 
pecially  by  the  training  and  instruction 
of  the  young,  that  woman  performs  her 
part  towards  the  preservation  of  a  free 
government.  It  is  generally  admitted 
that  public  liberty,  and  the  perpetuity 
of  a  free  constitution,  rest  on  the  virtue 
and  intelligence  of  the  community  which 
enjoys  it.  How  is  that  virtue  to  be  in 
spired,  and  how  is  that  intelligence  to  be 
communicated?  Bonaparte  once  asked 
Madame  de  Stael  in  what  manner  he 
could  best  promote  the  happiness  of 
France.  Her  reply  is  full  of  political 
wisdom.  She  said,  "Instruct  the  moth 
ers  of  the  French  people."  Mothers 
are,  indeed,  the  affectionate  and  effective 
teachers  of  the  human  race.  The  moth 
er  begins  her  process  of  training  with  the 


infant  in  her  arms.  It  is  she  who  directs, 
so  to  speak,  its  first  mental  and  spiritual 
pulsations.  She  conducts  it  along  the 
impressible  years  of  childhood  and  youth, 
and  hopes  to  deliver  it  to  the  stern  con 
flicts  and  tumultuous  scenes  of  life, 
armed  by  those  good  principles  which 
her  child  has  received  from  maternal 
care  and  love. 

If  we  draw  within  the  circle  of  our 
contemplation  the  mothers  of  a  civilized 
nation,  what  do  we  see?  We  behold  so 
many  artificers  working,  not  on  frail 
and  perishable  matter,  but  on  the  im 
mortal  mind,  moulding  and  fashioning 
beings  who  are  to  exist  for  ever.  We 
applaud  the  artist  whose  skill  and  ge 
nius  present  the  mimic  man  upon  the 
canvas;  we  admire  and  celebrate  the 
sculptor  who  works  out  that  same  image 
in  enduring  marble;  but  how  insignifi 
cant  are  these  achievements,  though  the 
highest  and  the  fairest  in  all  the  de 
partments  of  art,  in  comparison  with 
the  great  vocation  of  human  mothers! 
They  work,  not  upon  the  canvas  that 
shall  perish,  or  the  marble  that  shall 
crumble  into  dust,  but  upon  mind,  upon 
spirit,  which  is  to  last  for  ever,  and  which 
is  to  bear,  for  good  or  evil,  throughout 
its  duration,  the  impress  of  a  mother's 
plastic  hand. 

I  have  already  expressed  the  opinion, 
which  all  allow  to  be  correct,  that  our 
security  for  the  duration  of  the  free 
institutions  which  bless  our  country 
depends  upon  habits  of  virtue  and  the 
prevalence  of  knowledge  and  of  educa 
tion.  The  attainment  of  knowledge 
does  not  comprise  all  which  is  contained 
in  the  larger  term  of  education.  The 
feelings  are  to  be  disciplined;  the  pas 
sions  are  to  be  restrained;  true  and 
worthy  motives  are  to  be  inspired;  a 
profound  religious  feeling  is  to  be  in 
stilled,  and  pure  morality  inculcated, 
under  all  circumstances.  All  this  is 
comprised  in  education.  Mothers  who 
are  faithful  to  this  great  duty  will  tell 
their  children,  that  neither  in  political 
nor  in  any  other  concerns  of  life  can 
man  ever  withdraw  himself  from  the 
perpetual  obligations  of  conscience  and 
of  duty;  that  in  every  act,  whether  pub- 


480 


ADDRESS   TO   THE  LADIES   OF  RICHMOND. 


lie  or  private,  he  incurs  a  just  responsi 
bility;  and  that  in  no  condition  is  he 
warranted  in  trifling  with  important 
rights  and  obligations.  They  will  im 
press  upon  their  children  the  truth,  that 
the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  is 
a  social  duty,  of  as  solemn  a  nature  as 
man  can  be  called  to  perform;  that  a 
man  may  not  innocently  trifle  with  his 
vote;  that  every  free  elector  is  a  trustee, 
as  well  for  others  as  himself;  and  that 
every  man  and  every  measure  lie  sup 
ports  has  an  important  bea  ing  on  the 
interests  of  others,  as  well  as  on  his 
own.  It  is  in  the  inculcation  of  high 
and  pure  morals  such  as  these,  that,  in 
a  free  republic,  woman  performs  her 
sacred  duty,  and  fulfils  her  destiny. 
The  French,  as  you  know,  are  remark 
able  for  their  fondness  for  sententious 
phrases,  in  which  much  meaning  is  con 


densed  into  a  small  space.  I  noticed 
lately,  on  the  title-page  of  one  of  the 
books  <Jf  popular  instruction  in  France, 
this  motto:  "Pour  instruction  on  the 
heads  of  the  people!  you  owe  them  that 
baptism."  And,  certainly,  if  there  be 
any  duty  which  may  be  described  by  a 
reference  to  that  great  institute  of  re 
ligion, —  a  duty  approaching  it  in  im 
portance,  perhaps  next  to  it  in  obliga 
tion,  —  it  is  this. 

I  know  you  hardly  expect  me  to  ad 
dress  you  on  the  popular  political  topics 
of  the  'day.  You  read  enough,  you  hear 
quite  enough,  on  those  subjects.  You 
expect  me  only  to  meet  you,  and  to 
tender  my  profound  thanks  for  this 
marked  proof  of  your  regard,  and  will 
kindly  receive  the  assurances  with  which 
I  tender  to  you,  on  parting,  my  affec 
tionate  respects  and  best  wishes. 


RECEPTION  AT   BOSTON. 

A  SPEECH  MADE  IN  FANEUIL  HALL,  ON  THE  30ra  OF  SEPTEMBER,  1842,  AT 
A  PUBLIC  RECEPTION  GIVEN  TO  MR.  WEBSTER,  ON  HIS  RETURN  TO 
BOSTON,  AFTER  THE  NEGOTIATION  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


[ON  the  accession  of  General  Harrison  to 
the  Presidency  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
4th  of  March,  1841,  Mr.  Webster  was  called 
to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  in  which, 
after  the  President's  untimely  death,  he  con 
tinued  under  Mr.  Tyler  for  about  two  years. 
The  relations  of  the  country  with  Great 
Britain  were  at  that  time  in  a  very  critical 
position.  The  most  important  and  difficult 
subject  which  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
government,  while  he  filled  the  Department 
of  State,  was  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  which  was  signed  at 
Washington  on  the  9th  of  August,  1842. 
The  other  members  of  General  Harrison's 
Cabinet  having  resigned  their  places  in  the 
autumn  of  1841,  discontent  was  felt  by  some 
of  their  friends,  that  Mr.  Webster  should 
have  consented  to  retain  his.  But  as  Mr. 
Tyler  continued  to  place  entire  confidence 
in  Mr.  Webster's  administration  of  the  De 
partment  of  State,  the  great  importance  of 
pursuing  a  steady  line  of  policy  in  reference 
to  foreign  affairs,  and  especially  the  hope 
of  averting  a  rupture  with  England  by  an 
honorable  settlement  of  our  difficulties  with 
that  country,  induced  Mr.  Webster  to  re 
main  at  his  post. 

On  occasion  of  a  visit  made  by  him  to 
Boston,  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress, 
in  August,  1842,  a  number  of  his  friends 
were  desirous  of  manifesting  their  sense  of 
the  services  which  he  had  rendered  to  the 
country  by  pursuing  this  course.  A  pub 
lic  meeting  of  citizens  was  accordingly  held 
in  Faneuil  Hall,  on  the  30th  of  September, 
1842.  At  this  meeting  the  following  speech 
was  made.] 

I  KNOW  not  how  it  is,  Mr.  Mayor,  but 
there  is  something  in  the  echoes  of  these 
walls,  or  in  this  sea  of  upturned  faces 


which  I  behold  before  me,  or  in  the 
genius  that  always  hovers  over  this 
place,  fanning  ardent  and  patriotic  feel 
ing  by  every  motion  of  its  wings,  —  I 
know  not  how  it  is,  but  there  is  some 
thing  that  excites  me  strangely,  deeply, 
before  I  even  begin  to  speak.  It  cannot 
be  doubted  that  this  salutation  and 
greeting  from  my  fellow-citizens  of  Bos 
ton  is  a  tribute  dear  to  my  heart.  Bos 
ton  is  indeed  my  home,  my  cherished 
home.  It  is  now  more  than  twenty- 
five  years  since  I  came  to  it  with  my 
family,  to  pursue,  here  in  this  enlight 
ened  metropolis,  those  objects  of  pro 
fessional  life  for  which  my  studies  and 
education  were  designed  to  fit  me.  It  is 
twenty  years  since  I  was  invited  by  the 
citizens  of  Boston  to  take  upon  myself 
an  office  of  public  trust  in  their  service.1 
It  gives  me  infinite  pleasure  to  see  here 
to-day,  among  those  who  hold  the  seats 
yielded  to  such  as  are  more  advanced  in 
life,  not  a  few  of  the  gentlemen  who 
were  earnestly  instrumental  in  inducing 
me  to  enter  upon  a  course  of  life  wholly 
unexpected,  and  to  devote  myself  to  the 
service  of  the  public. 

Whenever  the  duties  of  public  life 
have  withdrawn  me  from  this  home,  I 
have  felt  it,  nevertheless,  to  be  the  at 
tractive  spot  to  which  all  local  affection 
tended.  And  now  that  the  progress  of 

1  The  office  of  Representative  in  Congress. 


482 


RECEPTION  AT   BOSTON. 


time  must  shortly  bring  about  the  pe 
riod,  if  it  should  not  be  hastened  by  the 
progress  of  events,  when  the  duties  of 
public  life  shall  yield  to  the  influences  of 
advancing  years,  I  cherish  no  hope  more 
precious,  than  to  pass  here  in  these  asso 
ciations  and  among  these  friends  what 
may  remain  to  me  of  life ;  and  to  leave 
in  the  midst  of  you,  fellow-citizens,  par 
taking  of  your  fortunes,  whether  for 
good  or  for  evil,  those  who  bear  my 
name,  and  inherit  my  blood. 

The  Mayor  has  alluded,  very  kindly, 
to  the  exertions  which  I  have  made 
since  I  have  held  a  position  in  the  Cabi 
net,  and  especially  to  the  results  of  the 
negotiation  in  which  I  have  been  recently 
engaged.  I  hope,  fellow-citizens,  that 
something  has  been  done  which  may 
prove  permanently  useful  to  the  public. 
I  have  endeavored  to  do  something,  and 
I  hope  my  endeavors  have  not  been  in 
vain.  I  have  had  a  hard  summer's 
work,  it  is  true,  but  I  am  not  wholly 
unused  -to  hard  work.  I  have  had  some 
anxious  days,  I  have  spent  some  sleep 
less  nights;  but  if  the  results  of  my 
efforts  shall  be  approved  by  the  commu 
nity,  I  am  richly  compensated.  My 
other  days  will  be  the  happier,  and  my 
other  nights  will  be  given  to  a  sweeter 
repose. 

It  was  an  object  of  the  highest  na 
tional  importance,  no  doubt,  to  disperse 
the  clouds  which  threatened  a  storm  be 
tween  England  and  America.  For  sev 
eral  years  past  there  has  been  a  class  of 
questions  open  between  the  two  coun 
tries,  which  have  not  always  threatened 
war,  but  which  have  prevented  the  peo 
ple  from  being  assured  of  permanent 
peace. 

His  Honor  the  Mayor  has  paid  a  just 
tribute  to  that  lamented  personage,  by 
whom,  in  1841,  I  was  called  to  the  place 
I  now  occupy;  and  although,  Gentle 
men,  I  know  it  is  in  very  bad  taste  to 
speak  much  of  one's  self,  yet  here, 
among  my  friends  and  neighbors,  I  wish 
to  say  a  word  or  two  on  subjects  in 
which  I  am  concerned.  With  the  late 
President  Harrison  I  had  contracted  an 
acquaintance  while  we  were  both  mem 
bers  of  Congress,  and  I  had  an  opportu 


nity  of  renewing  it  afterwards  in  his 
own  house,  and  elsewhere.  I  have  made 
no  exhibition  or  boast  of  the  confidence 
which  it  was  his  pleasure  to  repose  in 
me;  but  circumstances,  hardly  worthy 
of  serious  notice,  have  rendered  it  not 
improper  for  me  to  say  on  this  occasion, 
that  as  soon  as  President  Harrison  was 
elected,  without,  of  course,  one  word 
from  me,  he  wrote  to  me  inviting  me  to 
take  a  place  in  his  Cabinet,  leaving  to 
me  the  choice  of  that  place,  and  asking 
my  advice  as  to  the  persons  that  should 
fill  every  other  place  in  it.  He  ex 
pressed  rather  a  wish  that  I  should  take 
the  administration  of  the  treasury,  be 
cause,  as  he  was  pleased  to  say,  I  had 
devoted  myself  with  success  to  the  ex 
amination  of  the  questions  of  currency 
and  finance,  and  he  felt  that  the  wants 
of  the  country,  —  the  necessities  of  the 
country,  on  the  great  subjects  of  cur 
rency  and  finance,  — were  moving  causes 
that  produced  the  revolution  which  had 
placed  him  in  the  presidential  chair. 

It  so  happened,  Gentlemen,  that  my 
preference  was  for  another  place,  —  for 
that  which  I  have  now  the  honor  to  fill. 
I  felt  all  its  responsibilities;  but  I  must 
say,  that,  with  whatever  attention  I 
had  considered  the  general  questions  of 
finance,  I  felt  more  competent  and  will 
ing  to  undertake  the  duties  of  an  office 
which  did  not  involve  the  daily  drudgery 
of  the  treasury. 

I  was  not  disappointed,  Gentlemen,  in 
the  exigency  which  then  existed  in  our 
foreign  relations.  I  was  not  unaware  of 
all  the  difficulties  which  hung  over  us ; 
for  although  the  whole  of  the  danger  was 
not  at  that  moment  developed,  the  cause 
of  it  was  known,  and  it  seemed  as  if  an 
outbreak  was  inevitable.  I  allude  now 
to  that  occurrence  on  the  frontier  of 
which  the  chairman  has  already  spoken, 
which  took  place  in  the  winter  of  1841, 
the  case  of  Alexander  McLeod. 

A  year  or  two  before,  the  Canadian 
government  had  seen  fit  to  authorize  a 
military  incursion,  for  a  particular  pur 
pose,  within  the  territory  of  the  United 
States.  That  purpose  was  to  destroy  a 
steamboat,  charged  with  being  employed 
for  hostile  purposes  against  its  forces 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


483 


and  the  peaceable  subjects  of  the  crown. 
The  act  was  avowed  by  the  British  gov 
ernment  at  home  as  a  public  act.  Alex 
ander  McLeod,  a  person  who  individ 
ually  could  claim  no  regard  or  sympathy, 
happened  to  be  one  of  the  agents  who, 
in  a  military  character,  performed  the 
act  of  their  sovereign.  Coming  into  the 
United  States  some  years  after,  he  was 
arrested  under  a  charge  of  homicide  com 
mitted  in  this  act,  and  was  held  to  trial 
as  for  a  private  felony. 

According  to  my  apprehensions,  a  pro 
ceeding  of  this  kind  was  directly  adverse 
to  the  well-settled  doctrines  of  the  pub 
lic  law.  It  could  not  but  be  received 
with  lively  indignation,  not  only  by  the 
British  government,  but  among  the  peo 
ple  of  England.  It  would  be  so  re 
ceived  among  us.  If  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  should  as  a  military  man 
receive  an  order  of  his  government  and 
obey  it,  (and  he  must  either  obey  it  or 
be  hanged,)  and  should  afterwards,  in 
the  territory  of  another  power,  which  by 
that  act  he  had  offended,  be  tried  for  a 
violation  of  its  law,  as  for  a  crime,  and 
threatened  with  individual  punishment, 
there  is  not  a  man  in  the  United  States 
who  would  not  cry  out  for  redress  and 
for  vengeance.  Any  elevated  govern 
ment,  in  a  case  like  this,  wrhere  one  of 
its  citizens,  in  the  performance  of  his 
duty,  incurs  such  menaces  and  danger, 
assumes  the  responsibility;  any  elevated 
government  says,  "  The  act  was  mine, — 
I  am  the  man"; — "Adsum  qui  feci,  in 
me  convertite  ferrum." 

Now,  Gentlemen,  information  of  the 
action  of  the  British  government  on  this 
subject  was  transmitted  to  us  at  Wash 
ington  within  a  few  days  after  the  instal 
lation  of  General  Harrison.  I  did  not 
think  that  it  wyas  proper  to  make  public 
then,  nor  is  it  important  to  say  now,  all 
that  we  knew  on  the  subject ;  but  I  will 
tell  you,  in  general  terms,  that  if  all  that 
was  known  at  Washington  then  had 
been  divulged  throughout  the  country, 
the  value  of  the  shipping  interest  of  this 
city,  and  of  every  other  interest  con 
nected  with  the  commerce  of  the  country, 
would  have  been  depressed  one  half  in 
six  hours.  I  thought  that  the  concus 


sion  might  be  averted,  by  holding  up  to 
view  the  principles  of  public  law  by 
which  this  question  ought  to  be  settled, 
and  by  demanding  an  apology  for  what 
ever  had  been  done  against  those  princi 
ples  of  public  law  by  the  British  govern 
ment  or  its  officers.  I  thought  we  ought 
to  put  ourselves  right  in  the  first  place, 
and  then  we  could  insist  that  they  should 
do  right  in  the  next  place.  '  When  in 
England,  in  the  year  1839,  I  had  occa 
sion  to  address  a  large  and  respectable 
assemblage;  and  allusion  having  been 
made  to  the  relations  of  things  between 
the  two  countries,  I  stated  then,  what  I 
thought  and  now  think,  that  in  any  con 
troversy  which  should  terminate  in  war 
between  the  United  States  and  England, 
the  only  eminent  advantage  that  either 
.would  possess  would  be  found  in  the  rec 
titude  of  its  cause.  With  the  right  on 
our  side,  we  are  a  match  for  England; 
and  with  the  right  on  her  side,  she  is  a 
match  for  us,  or  for  anybody. 

WTe  live  in  an  age,  fellow-citizens, 
when  there  has  been  established  among 
the  nations  a  more  elevated  tribunal  than 
ever  before  existed  on  earth ;  I  mean  the 
tribunal  of  the  enlightened  public  opin 
ion  of  the  world.  Governments  cannot 
go  to  war  now,  either  with  or  against 
the  consent  of  their  own  subjects  or  peo 
ple,  without  the  reprobation  of  other 
states,  unless  for  grounds  and  reasons 
justifying  them  in  the  general  judgment 
of  mankind.  The  judgment  of  civiliza 
tion,  of  commerce,  and  of  that  heavenly 
light  that  beams  over  Christendom, 
restrains  men,  congresses,  parliaments, 
princes,  and  people  from  gratifying  the 
inordinate  love  of  ambition  through  the 
bloody  scenes  of  war.  It  has  been  wisely 
said,  and  it  is  true,  that  every  settle 
ment  of  national  differences  between 
Christian  states  by  fair  negotiation, 
without  resort  to  arms,  is  a  new  illus 
tration  and  a  new  proof  of  the  benign 
influence  of  the  Christian  faith. 

With  regard  to  the  terms  of  this 
treaty,  and  in  relation  to  the  other  sub 
jects  connected  with  it,  it  is  somewhat 
awkward  for  me  to  speak,  because  the 
documents  connected  with  them  have 
not  been  made  public  by  authority.  But 


484 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


I  persuade  myself,  that,  when  the  whole 
shall  be  calmly  considered,  it  will  be 
seen  that  there  was  throughout  a  fervent 
disposition  to  maintain  the  interest  and 
honor  of  the  country,  united  with  a 
proper  regard  for  the  preservation  of 
peace  between  us  and  the  greatest  com 
mercial  nation  of  the  world. 

Gentlemen,  while  I  receive  these  com 
mendations  which  you  have  bestowed,  I 
have  an  agreeable  duty  to  perform  to 
others.  In  the  first  place,  I  have  great 
pleasure  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  in 
telligent  interest  manifested  by  the  Pres 
ident  of  the  United  States,  under  whose 
authority,  of  course,  I  constantly  acted 
throughout  the  negotiation,  and  his  sin 
cere  and  anxious  desire  that  it  might  re 
sult  successfully.  I  take  great  pleasure 
in  acknowledging  here,  as  I  will  ac 
knowledge  everywhere,  my  obligations 
to  him  for  the  unbroken  and  steady  con 
fidence  reposed  in  me  through  the  whole 
progress  of  an  affair  not  unimportant  to 
the  country,  and  infinitely  important  to 
my  own  reputation. 

A  negotiator  disparaged,  distrusted, 
treated  with  jealousy  by  his  own  gov 
ernment,  would  be  indeed  a  very  unequal 
match  for  a  cool  and  sagacious  represent 
ative  of  one  of  the  proudest  and  most 
powerful  monarchies  of  Europe,  possess 
ing  in  the  fullest  extent  the  confidence 
of  his  government,  and  authorized  to 
bind  it  in  concerns  of  the  greatest  im 
portance.  I  shall  never  forget  the  frank 
ness  and  generosity  with  which,  after  a 
full  and  free  interchange  of  suggestions 
upon  the  subject,  I  was  told  by  the  Pres 
ident  that  on  my  shoulders  rested  the 
responsibility  of  the  negotiation,  and  on 
my  discretion  and  judgment  should  rest 
the  lead  of  every  measure.  I  desire  also 
to  speak  here  of  the  hearty  co-operation 
rendered  every  day  by  the  other  gentle 
men  connected  with  the  administration, 
from  every  one  of  whom  I  received  im 
portant  assistance.  I  speak  with  satis 
faction,  also,  of  the  useful  labors  of  all 
the  Commissioners,  although  I  need 
hardly  say  here,  what  has  been  already 
said  officially,  that  the  highest  respect  is 
due  to  the  Commissioners  from  Maine 
and  Massachusetts  for  their  faithful  ad 


herence  to  the  rights  of  their  own  States, 
mingled. with  a  cordial  co-operation  in 
what  was  required  by  the  general  inter 
ests  of  the  United  States.  And  I  hope 
I  shall  not  be  considered  as  trespassing 
on  this  occasion,  if  I  speak  of  the  happy 
selection  made  by  England  of  a  person 
to  represent  her  government  on  this  oc 
casion,1 —  a  thorough  Englishman,  un 
derstanding' and  appreciating  the  great 
objects  and  interests  of  his  own  govern 
ment,  of  large  and  liberal  views,  and  of 
such  standing  and  weight  of  character 
at  home,  as  to  impress  a  feeling  of  ap 
probation  of  his  course  upon  both  gov 
ernment  and  people.  He  was  fully  ac 
quainted  with  the  subject,  and  always, 
on  all  occasions,  as  far  as  his  allegiance 
and  duty  permitted,  felt  and  manifested 
good- will  towards  this  country. 

Aside  from  the  question  of  the  boun 
dary,  there  were  other  important  subjects 
to  be  considered,  to  which  I  know  not 
whether  this  is  a  proper  occasion  to  al 
lude.  When  the  results  of  the  negotia 
tion  shall  be  fully  before  the  public,  it 
will  be  seen  that  these  other  questions 
have  not  been  neglected,  questions  of 
great  moment  and  importance  to  the 
country ;  and  then  I  shall  look  with  con 
cern,  but  with  faith  and  trust,  for  the 
judgment  of  that  country  upon  them. 
It  is  but  just  to  take  notice  of  a  very  im 
portant  act,  intended  to  provide  for  such 
cases  as  McLeod's,  for  which  the  country 
is  indebted  to  the  Whig  majorities  in  the 
two  houses  of  Congress,  acting  upon 
the  President's  recommendation.  Events 
showed  the  absolute  necessity  of  remov 
ing  into  the  national  tribunals  questions 
involving  the  peace  and  honor  of  the 
United  States. 

There  yet  remain,  Gentlemen,  several 
other  subjects  still  unsettled  with  Eng 
land.  First,  there  is  that  concerning 
the  trade  between  the  United  States  and 
the  possessions  of  England,  on  this  con 
tinent  and  in  the  West  Indies.  It  has 
been  my  duty  to  look  into  that  subject, 
and  to  keep  the  run  of  it,  as  we  say, 
from  the  arrangement  of  1829  and  1830, 
until  the  present  time.  That  arrange 
ment  was  one  unfavorable  to  the  ship- 
1  Lord  Ashburton. 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


485 


ping  interests  of  the  United  States,  and 
especially  so  to  the  New  England  States. 
To  adjust  these  relations  is  an  impor 
tant  subject,  either  for  diplomatic  nego 
tiation,  or  the  consideration  of  Congress. 
One  or  both  houses  of  Congress,  indeed, 
have  already  called  upon  the  proper  de 
partment  for  a  report  upon  the  opera 
tions  of  that  arrangement,  and  a  com 
mittee  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
has  made  a  report,  showing  that  some 
adjustment  of  these  relations  is  of  vital 
importance  to  the  future  prosperity  of 
our  navigating  interests. 

There  is  another  question,  somewhat 
more  remote;  that  of  the  Northwest 
Boundary,  where  the  possessions  of  the 
two  countries  touch  each  other  upon  the 
Pacific.  There  are  evident  public  rea 
sons  why  that  question  should  be  settled 
before  the  country  becomes  peopled. 

There  are  also,  Gentlemen,  many  open 
questions  respecting  our  relations  with 
other  governments.  Upon  most  of  the 
other  States  of  this  continent,  citizens 
of  the  United  States  have  claims,  with 
regard  to  which  the  delays  already  in 
curred  have  caused  great  injustice ;  and 
it  becomes  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  by  a  calm  and  dignified  course, 
and  a  deliberate  and  vigorous  tone  of 
administration  of  public  affairs,  to  se 
cure  prompt  justice  to  our  citizens  in 
these  quarters. 

I  am  here  to-day  as  a  guest.  I  was 
invited  by  a  number  of  highly  valued 
personal  and  political  friends  to  partake 
with  them  of  a  public  dinner,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  them  an  opportunity 
to  pass  the  usual  greeting  of  friends 
upon  my  return ;  of  testifying  their  re 
spect  for  my  public  services  heretofore ; 
and  of  exchanging  congratulations  upon 
the  results  of  the  late  negotiation.  It 
was  at  my  instance  that  the  proposed 
dinner  took  the  form  of  this  meeting, 
and,  instead  of  meeting  them  at  the 
festive  board,  I  agreed  to  meet  them, 
and  those  who  chose  to  meet  me  with 
them,  here.  Still,  the  general  character 
of  the  meeting  seems  not  to  be  changed. 
I  am  here  as  a  guest;  here  to  receive 
greetings  and  salutations  for  particular 
services,  and  not  under  any  intimation 


or  expectation  that  I  should  address  the 
gentlemen  who  invited  me  or  others 
here,  upon  subjects  not  suggested  by 
themselves.  It  would  not  become  me 
to  use  the  occasion  for  any  more  general 
purpose.  Because,  although  I  have  a 
design,  at  some  time  not  far  distant,  to 
make  known  my  sentiments  upon  po 
litical  matters  generally,  and  upon  the 
political  state  of  the  country  and  that 
of  its  several  parties,  yet  I  know  very 
well  that  I  should  be  trespassing  beyond 
the  bounds  of  politeness  and  propriety, 
should  I  enter  upon  this  W7hole  wide 
field  now.  I  will  not  enter  upon  it,  be 
cause  the  gentlemen  who  invited  me  en 
tertain  on  many  of  these  topics  views 
different  from  my  own,  and  they  would 
very  properly  say,  that  they  came  here 
to  meet  Mr.  Webster,  to  congratulate 
him  upon  the  late  negotiation,  and  to 
exchange  sentiments  upon  matters  about 
which  they  agreed  with  him ;  and  that 
it  was  not  in  very  correct  taste  for  him 
to  use  the  occasion  to  express  opinions 
upon  other  subjects  on  which  they  differ. 
It  is  on  that  account  that  1  shall  forbear 
discussing  political  subjects  at  large,  and 
shall  endeavor  to  confine  my  remarks  to 
what  may  be  considered  as  affecting  my 
self,  directly  or  indirectly. 

The  Mayor  was  kind  enough  to  say, 
that  having,  in  his  judgment,  performed 
the  duties  of  my  own  department  to  the 
satisfaction  of  my  country,  it  might  be 
left  to  me  to  take  care  of  my  own  honor 
and  reputation.  I  suppose  that  he  meant 
to  say,  that  in  the  present  distracted 
state  of  the  Whig  party,  and  among  the 
contrariety  of  opinions  that  prevail  (if 
there  be  a  contrariety  of  opinion)  as  to 
the  course  proper  for  me  to  pursue,  the 
decision  of  that  question  might  be  left 
to  myself.  I  am  exactly  of  his  opinion. 
I  am  quite  of  opinion  that  on  a  question 
touching  my  own  honor  and  character, 
as  I  am  to  bear  the  consequences  of  the 
decision,  I  had  a  great  deal  better  be 
trusted  to  make  it.  Xo  man  feels  more 
highly  the  advantage  of  the  advice  of 
friends  than  I  do ;  but  on  a  question  so 
delicate  and  important  as  that,  I  like  to 
choose  myself  the  friends  who  are  to 
give  me  advice ;  and  upon  this  subject, 


486 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


Gentlemen,  I  shall  leave  you  as  enlight 
ened  as  I  found  you. 

I  give  no  pledges,  I  make  no  intima 
tions,  one  way  or  the  other;  and  I  will 
be  as  free,  when  this  day  closes,  to  act 
as  duty  calls,  as  I  was  when  the  dawn  of 
this  day  —  (Here  Mr.  Webster  was  inter 
rupted  by  tremendous  applause.  When 
silence  was  restored  he  continued :) 

There  is  a  delicacy  in  the  case,  be 
cause  there  is  always  delicacy  and  regret 
when  one  feels  obliged  to  differ  from  his 
friends ;  but  there  is  no  embarrassment. 
There  is  no  embarrassment,  because,  if 
I  see  the  path  of  duty  before  me,  I  have 
that  within  me  which  will  enable  me  to 
pursue  it,  and  throw  all  embarrassment 
to  the  winds.  A  public  man  has  no  oc 
casion  to  be  embarrassed,  if  he  is  honest. 
Himself  and  his  feelings  should  be  to 
him  as  nobody  and  as  nothing;  the  in 
terest  of  his  country  must  be  to  him  as 
every  thing;  he  must  sink  what  is  per 
sonal  to  himself,  making  exertions  for 
his  country;  and  it  is  his  ability  and 
readiness  to  do  this  which  are  to  mark 
him  as  a  great  or  as  a  little  man  in  time 
to  come. 

There  were  many  persons  in  Septem 
ber,  1841,  who  found  great  fault  with  my 
remaining  in  the  President's  Cabinet. 
You  know,  Gentlemen,  that  twenty 
years  of  honest,  and  not  altogether  un 
distinguished  service  in  the  Whig  cause, 
did  not  save  me  from  an  outpouring 
of  wrath,  which  seldom  proceeds  from 
Whig  pens  and  Whig  tongues  against 
anybody.  I  am,  Gentlemen,  a  little 
hard  to  coax,  but  as  to  being  driven, 
that  is  out  of  the  question.  I  chose  to 
trust  my  own  judgment,  and  thinking  I 
was  at  a  post  where  I  was  in  the  service 
of  the  country,  and  could  do  it  good,  I 
stayed  there.  And  I  leave  it  to  you  to 
day  to  say,  I  leave  it  to  my  country  to 
say,  whether  the  country  would  have 
been  better  off  if  I  had  left  also.  I 
have  no  attachment  to  office.  I  have 
tasted  of  its  sweets,  but  I  have  tasted  of 
its  bitterness.  I  am  content  with  what 
I  have  achieved ;  I  am  more  ready  to 
rest  satisfied  with  what  is  gained,  than 
to  run  the  risk  of  doubtful  efforts  for 
new  acquisition. 


I  suppose  I  ought  to  pause  here.  (Cries 
of  "Go  on!")  I  ought,  perhaps,  to 
allude  to  nothing  more,  and  I  will  not 
allude  to  any  thing  further  than  it  may 
be  supposed  to  concern  myself,  directly 
or  by  implication.  Gentlemen,  and  Mr. 
Mayor,  a  most  respectable  convention 
of  Whig  delegates  met  in  this  place  a 
few  days  since,  and  passed  very  impor 
tant  resolutions.  There  is  no  set  of  gen 
tlemen  in  the  Commonwealth,  so  far  as 
I  know  them,  who  have  more  of  my  re 
spect  and  regard.  They  are  Whigs,  but 
they  are  no  better  Whigs  than  I  am. 
They  have  served  the  country  in  the 
Whig  ranks;  so  have  I,  quite  as  long  as 
most  of  them,  though  perhaps  with  less 
ability  and  success.  Their  resolutions 
on  political  subjects,  as  representing 
the  Whigs  of  the  State,  are  entitled 
to  respect,  so  far  as  they  were  author 
ized  to  express  opinion  on  those  sub 
jects,  and  no  further.  They  were  sent 
hither,  as  I  supposed,  to  agree  upon  can 
didates  for  the  offices  of  Governor  and 
Lieutenant- Govern  or  for  the  support  of 
the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts;  and  if  they 
had  any  authority  to  speak  in  the  name 
of  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts  to  any 
other  purport  or  intent,  I  have  not  been 
informed  of  it.  I  feel  very  little  dis 
turbed  by  any  of  those  proceedings,  of 
whatever  nature ;  but  some  of  them  ap 
pear  to  me  to  have  been  inconsiderate 
and  hasty,  and  their  point  and  bearing 
can  hardly  be  mistaken.  I  notice,  among 
others,  a  declaration  made,  in  behalf  of 
all  the  Whigs  of  this  Commonwealth,  of 
"a  full  and  final  separation  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States."  If 
those  gentlemen  saw  fit  to  express  their 
own  sentiments  to  that  extent,  there  was 
no  objection.  Whigs  speak  their  senti 
ments  everywhere;  but  whether  they 
may  assume  a  privilege  to  speak  for 
others  on  a  point  on  which  those  others 
have  not  given  them  authority,  is  an 
other  question.  I  am  a  Whig,  I  always 
have  been  a  Whig,  and  I  always  will  be 
one;  and  if  there  are  any  who  would 
turn  me  out  of  the  pale  of  that  com 
munion,  let  them  see  who  will  get  out 
first.  I  am  a  Massachusetts  Whig,  a 
Faneuil  Hall  Whig,  having  breathed 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


487 


this  air  for  five-and- twenty  years,  and 
meaning  to  breathe  it  as  long  as  my  life 
is  spared.  I  am  ready  to  submit  to  all 
decisions  of  Whig  conventions  on  sub 
jects  on  which  they  are  authorized  to 
make  decisions ;  I  know  that  great  party 
good  and  great  public  good  can  only  be 
so  obtained.  But  it  is  quite  another 
question  whether  a  set  of  gentlemen, 
however  respectable  they  may  be  as  in 
dividuals,  shall  have  the  power  to  bind 
me  on  matters  which  I  have  not  agreed 
to  submit  to  their  decision  at  all. 

"  A  full  and  final  separation  "  is  de 
clared  between  the  Whig  party  of  Mas 
sachusetts  and  the  President.  That  is 
the  text  :  it  requires  a  commentary. 
What  does  it  mean?  The  President  of 
the  United  States  has  three  years  of  his 
term  of  office  yet  unexpired.  Does  this 
declaration  mean,  then,  that  during 
those  three  years  all  the  measures  of  his 
administration  are  to  be  opposed  by  the 
great  body  of  the  Whig  party  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  whether  they  are  right  or 
wrong?  There  are  great  public  inter 
ests  which  require  his  attention.  If  the 
President  of  the  United  States  should 
attempt,  by  negotiation,  or  by  earnest 
and  serious  application  to  Congress,  to 
make  some  change  in  the  present  ar 
rangements,  such  as  should  be  of  service 
to  those  interests  of  navigation  which 
are  concerned  in  the  colonial  trade,  are 
the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts  to  give  him 
neither  aid  nor  succor?  If  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  shall  direct 
the  proper  department  to  review  the 
whole  commercial  policy  of  the  United 
States,  in  respect  of  reciprocity  in  the 
indirect  trade,  to  which  so  much  of  our 
tonnage  is  now  sacrificed,  if  the  amend 
ment  of  this  policy  shall  be  undertaken 
by  him,  is  there  such  a  separation  be 
tween  him  and  the  Whigs  of  Massachu 
setts  as  shall  lead  them  and  their  repre 
sentatives  to  oppose  it.  Do  you  know 
(there  are  gentlemen  now  here  who  do 
know)  that  a  large  proportion,  I  rather 
think  more  than  one  half,  of  the  carry 
ing  trade  between  the  empire  of  Brazil 
and  the  United  States  is  enjoyed  by  ton 
nage  from  the  North  of  Europe,  in  con 
sequence  of  this  ill-considered  principle 


with  regard  to  reciprocity.  You  might 
just  as  well  admit  them  into  the  coast 
ing  trade.  By  this  arrangement,  we 
take  the  bread  out  of  our  children's 
mouths  and  give  it  to  strangers.  I  ap 
peal  to  you,  Sir,  (turning  to  Captain 
Benjamin  Rich,  who  sat  by  him,)  is  not 
this  true?  (Mr.  Rich  at  once  replied, 
True !)  Is  every  measure  of  this  sort, 
for  the  relief  of  such  abuses,  to  be  re 
jected?  Are  we  to  suffer  ourselves  to 
remain  inactive  under  every  grievance 
of  this  kind  until  these  three  years  shall 
expire,  and  through  as  many  more  as 
shall  pass  until  Providence  shall  bless  us 
with  more  power  of  doing  good  than  we 
have  now? 

Again,  there  are  now  in  this  State 
persons  employed  under  government, 
allowed  to  be  pretty  good  Whigs,  still 
holding  their  offices;  collectors,  district 
attorneys,  postmasters,  marshals.  What 
is  to  become  of  them  in  this  separation? 
Which  side  are  they  to  fall?  Are  they 
to  resign?  or  is  this  resolution  to  be 
held  up  to  government  as  an  invitation 
or  a  provocation  to  turn  them  out?  Our 
distinguished  fellow-citizen,  who,  with 
so  much  credit  to  himself  and  to  his 
country,  represents  our  government  in 
England,1  —  is  lie  expected  to  come 
home,  on  this  separation,  and  yield  his 
place  to  his  predecessor,2  or  to  some 
body  else?  And  in  regard  to  the  indi 
vidual  who  addresses  you, — what  do 
his  brother  Whigs  mean  to  do  with 
him?  Where  do  they  mean  to  place 
me?  Generally,  when  a  divorce  takes 
place,  the  parties  divide  their  children. 
I  am  anxious  to  know  where,  in  the 
case  of  this  divorce,  I  shall  fall.  This 
declaration  announces  a  full  and  final 
separation  between  the  Wliigs  of  Mas 
sachusetts  and  the  President.  If  I 
choose  to  remain  in  the  President's 
councils,  do  these  gentlemen  mean  to 
say  that  I  cease  to  be  a  Massachusetts 
Whig?  I  am  quite  ready  to  put  that 
question  to  the  people  of  Massachu 
setts. 

I  would  not  treat  this  matter  too  light 
ly,  nor  yet  too  seriously.  I  know  very 

1  Mr.  Edward  Everett, 

2  Mr.  Andrew  Stevenson. 


488 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


well  that,  when  public  bodies  get  to 
gether,  resolutions  can  never  be  con 
sidered  with  any  degree  of  deliberation. 
They  are  passed  as  they  are  presented. 
Who  the  honorable  gentlemen  were  who 
drew  this  resolution  I  do  not  know.  I 
suspect  that  they  had  not  much  mean 
ing  in  it,  and  that  they  have  not  very 
clearly  denned  what  little  meaning  they 
had.  They  were  angry;  they  were  re 
sentful  ;  they  had  drawn  up  a  string  of 
charges  against  the  President,  —  a  bill 
of  indictment,  as  it  were,  —  and,  to 
close  the  whole,  they  introduced  this 
declaration  about  "  a  full  and  final  sep 
aration."  I  could  not  read  this,  of 
course,  without  perceiving  that  it  had 
an  intentional  or  unintentional  bearing 
on  my  position  ;  and  therefore  it  was 
proper  for  me  to  allude  to  it  here. 

Gentlemen,  there  are  some  topics  on 
which  it  has  been  my  fortune  to  differ 
from  my  old  friends.  They  may  be 
right  on  these  topics  ;  very  probably 
they  are ;  but  I  am  sure  /  am  right  in 
maintaining  my  opinions,  such  as  they 
are,  when  I  have  formed  them  honestly 
and  on  deliberation.  There  seems  to 
me  to  be  a  disposition  to  postpone  all 
attempts  to  do  good  to  the  country  to 
some  future  and  uncertain  day.  Yet 
there  is  a  Whig  majority  in  each  house 
of  Congress,  and  I  am  of  opinion  that 
now  is  the  time  to  accomplish  what  yet 
remains  to  be  accomplished.  Some  gen 
tlemen  are  for  suffering  the  present 
Congress  to  expire;  another  Congress 
to  be  chosen,  and  to  expire  also;  a 
third  Congress  to  be  chosen,  and  then, 
if  there  shall  be  a  Whig  majority  in 
both  branches,  and  a  Whig  President, 
they  propose  to  take  up  highly  impor 
tant  and  pressing  subjects.  These  are 
persons,  Gentlemen,  of  more  sanguine 
temperament  than  myself.  ' '  Confi 
dence,"  says  Lord  Chatham,  "is  a 
plant  of  slow  growth  in  an  old  bosom." 
He  referred  to  confidence  in  men,  but 
the  remark  is  as  true  of  confidence  in 
predictions  of  future  occurrences.  Many 
Whigs  see  before  us  a  prospect  of  more 
power,  and  a  better  chance  to  serve  the 
country,  than  we  now  possess.  Far 
along  in  the  horizon,  they  discern  mild 


skies  and  halcyon  seas,  while  fogs  and 
darkness  and  mists  blind  other  sons  of 
humanity  from  beholding  all  this  bright 
vision.  It  was  not  so  that  we  accom 
plished  our  last  great  victory,  by  simply 
brooding  over  a  glorious  Whig  future. 
We  succeeded  in  1840,  but  not  without 
an  effort;  and  I  know  that  nothing  but 
union,  cordial,  sympathetic,  fraternal 
union,  can  prevent  the  party  that 
achieved  that  success  from  renewed 
prostration.  It  is  not,  —  I  would  say 
it  in  the  presence  of  the  world,  —  it  is 
not  by  premature  and  partial,  by  pre 
scriptive  and  denunciatory  proceedings, 
that  this  great  Whig  family  can  ever  be 
kept  together,  or  that  Whig  counsels 
can  maintain  their  ascendency.  This 
is  perfectly  plain  and  obvious.  It  was 
a  party,  from  the  first,  made  up  of  dif 
ferent  opinions  and  principles,  of  gen 
tlemen  of  every  political  complexion, 
uniting  to  make  a  change  in  the  admin 
istration.  They  were  men  of  strong 
State-rights  principles,  men  of  strong 
federal  principles,  men  of  extreme  tar 
iff,  and  men  of  extreme  anti-tariff 
notions.  What  could  be  expected  of 
such  a  party,  unless  animated  by  a 
spirit  of  conciliation  and  harmony,  of 
union  and  sympathy?  Its  true  policy 
was,  from  the  first,  and  must  be,  un 
less  it  meditates  its  own  destruction,  to 
heal,  and  not  to  widen,  the  breaches  that 
existed  in  its  ranks.  It  consented  to  be 
come  united  in  order  to  save  the  country 
from  a  continuation  of  a  ruinous  course 
of  measures.  And  the  lesson  taught  by 
the  whole  history  of  the  revolution  of 
1840  is  the  momentous  value  of  concilia 
tion,  friendship,  sympathy,  and  union. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  understand  the  mat 
ter,  there  were  four  or  five  great  objects 
in  that  revolution.  And,  in  the  first 
place,  one  great  object  was  that  of  at 
tempting  to  secure  permanent  peace  be 
tween  this  country  and  England.  For 
although,  as  I  have  said,  we  were  not 
actually  at  war,  we  were  subjected  to 
perpetual  agitations,  which  disturb  the 
interests  of  the  country  almost  as  much 
as  war.  They  break  in  upon  men's  pur 
suits,  and  render  them  incapable  of  cal 
culating  or  judging  of  their  chances  of 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


489 


success  in  any  proposed  line  or  course 
of  business.  A  settled  peace  was  one 
of  the  objects  of  that  revolution.  I  am 
glad  if  you  think  this  is  accomplished. 

The  next  object  of  that  revolution 
was  an  increase  of  revenue.  It  was  no 
torious  that,  for  the  several  last  years, 
the  expenditures  for  the  administration 
of  government  had  exceeded  the  re 
ceipts;  in  other  words,  government  had 
been  running  in  debt,  and  in  the  mean 
time  the  operation  of  the  compromise 
act  was  still  further  and  faster  dimin 
ishing  the  revenue  itself.  A  sound  reve 
nue  was  one  of  those  objects ;  and  that 
it  has  been  accomplished,  our  thanks 
and  praise  are  due  to  the  Congress  that 
has  just  adjourned. 

A  third  object  was  protection,  protec 
tion  incidental  to  revenue,  or  consequent 
upon  revenue.  Now  as  to  that,  Gentle 
men,  much  has  been  done,  and  I  hope 
it  will  be  found  that  enough  has  been 
done.  And  for  this,  too,  all  the  Whigs 
who  supported  that  measure  in  Congress 
are  entitled  to  high  praise :  they  receive 
mine,  and  I  hope  they  do  yours;  it  is 
right  that  they  should.  But  let  us  be 
just.  The  French  rhetoricians  have  a 
maxim,  that  there  is  nothing  beautiful 
that  is  not  true ;  I  am  afraid  that  some 
of  our  jubilant  oratory  would  hardly 
stand  the  test  of  this  canon  of  criticism. 
It  is  not  true  that  a  majority,  composed 
of  Whigs,  could  be  found,  in  either 
house,  in  favor  of  the  tariff  bill.  More 
than  thirty  Whigs,  many  of  them  gen 
tlemen  of  lead  and  influence,  voted 
against  the  law,  from  beginning  to  end, 
on  all  questions,  direct  and  indirect; 
and  it  is  not  pleasant  to  consider  what 
would  have  been  the  state  of  the  coun 
try,  the  treasury,  and  the  government 
itself,  at  this  moment,  if  the  law  act 
ually  passed,  for  revenue  and  for  pro 
tection,  had  depended  on  Whig  votes 
alone.  After  all,  it  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  a  single  vote ;  and 
there  is  a  good  deal  of  eclat  about  that 
single  vote.  But  did  not  every  gentle 
man  who  voted  for  it  take  the  responsi 
bility  and  deserve  the  honor  of  that 
single  vote?  Several  gentlemen  in  the 
opposition  thus  befriended  the  bill ;  thus 


did  our  neighbor  from  the  Middlesex  Dis 
trict  of  this  State,1  voting  for  the  tariff 
out  and  out,  as  steadily  as  did  my  hon 
ored  friend,  the  member  from  this  city.2 
We  hear  nothing  of  his  "  coming  to  the 
rescue,"  and  yet  he  had  that  one  rote,  and 
held  the  tariff  in  his  hand  as  absolutely 
as  if  he  had  had  a  presidential  veto! 
And  how  was  it  in  the  Senate?  It 
passed  by  one  vote  again  there,  and 
could  not  have  passed  at  all  without 
the  assistance  of  the  two  Senators  from 
Pennsylvania,  of  Mr.  Williams  of 
Maine,  and  of  Mr.  Wright  of  New 
York.  Let  us  then  admit  the  truth 
(and  a  lawyer  may  do  that  when  it 
helps  his  case),  that  it  was  necessary 
that  a  large  portion  of  the  other  party 
should  come  to  the  assistance  of  the 
Whigs  to  enable  them  to  carry  the  tariff, 
and  that,  if  this  assistance  had  not  been 
rendered,  the  tariff  must  have  failed. 

And  this  is  a  very  important  truth  for 
New  England.  Her  children,  looking 
to  their  manufactures  and  industry  for 
their  livelihood,  must  rejoice  to  find  the 
tariff,  so  necessary  to  these,  no  party 
question.  Can  they  desire,  can  they 
wish,  that  such  a  great  object  as  the 
protection  of  industry  should  become  a 
party  object,  rising  with  party,  and  with 
the  failure  of  the  party  that  supported 
it  going  to  the  grave?  This  is  a  public, 
a  national  question.  The  tariff  ought 
to  be  inwrought  in  the  sentiments  of  all 
parties;  and  although  I  hope  that  the 
pre-eminence  of  Whig  principles  may 
be  eternal,  I  wish  to  take  bond  and  se 
curity,  that  we  may  make  the  protec 
tion  of  domestic  industry  more  durable 
even  than  Whig  supremacy. 

Let  us  be  true  in  another  respect. 
This  tariff  has  accomplished  much,  and 
is  an  honor  to  the  men  who  passed  it. 
But  in  regard  to  protection  it  has  only 
restored  the  country  to  the  state  in  which 
it  was  before  the  compromise  act,  and 
from  which  it  fell  under  the  operation 
of  that  act.  It  has  repaired  the  conse 
quences  of  that  measure,  and  it  has  done 
no  more.  I  may  speak  of  the  compro 
mise  act.  My  turn  has  come  now.  No 

1  Mr.  Parmenter. 

2  Mr.  R.  C.  Winthrop. 


490 


RECEPTION   AT  BOSTON. 


measure  ever  passed  Congress  during  my 
connection  with  that  body  that  caused 
me  so  much  grief  and  mortification.  It 
was  passed  by  a  few  friends  joining  the 
whole  host  of  the  enemy.  I  have  heard 
much  of  the  motives  of  that  act.  The 
personal  motives  of  those  that  passed 
the  act  were,  I  doubt  not,  pure;  and  all 
public  men  are  supposed  to  act  from 
pure  motives.  But  if  by  motives  are 
meant  the  objects  proposed  by  the  act 
itself,  and  expressed  in  it,  then  I  say,  if 
those  be  the  motives  alluded  to,  they  are 
worse  than  the  act  itself.  The  principle 
was  bad,  the  measure  was  bad,  the  conse 
quences  were  bad.  Every  circumstance, 
as  well  as  every  line  of  the  act  itself,  shows 
that  the  design  was  to  impose  upon  legis 
lation  a  restraint  that  the  Constitution 
had  not  imposed;  to  insert  in  the  Con 
stitution  a  new  prohibitory  clause,  pro 
viding  that,  after  the  year  1842,  no  rev 
enue  should  be  collected  except  according 
to  an  absurd  horizontal  system,  and 
none  exceeding  twenty  per  cent.  It  was 
then  pressed  through  under  the  great 
emergency  of  the  public  necessities.  But 
I  may  now  recur  to  what  I  then  said, 
namely,  that  its  principle  was  false  and 
dangerous,  and  that,  when  its  time  came, 
it  would  rack  and  convulse  our  system. 
I  said  we  should  not  get  rid  of  it  with 
out  throes  and  spasms.  Has  not  this 
been  as  predicted?  We  have  felt  the 
spasms  and  throes  of  this  convulsion; 
but  we  have  at  last  gone  through  them, 
and  begin  to  breathe  again.  It  is  some 
thing  that  that  act  is  at  last  got  rid  of ; 
and  the  present  tariff  is  deserving  in 
this,  that  it  is  specific  and  discriminat 
ing,  that  it  holds  to  common  sense,  and 
rejects  and  discards  the  principles  of  the 
compromise  act,  I  hope  for  ever. 

Another  great  and  principal  object  of 
the  revolution  of  1840  was  a  restoration 
of  the  currency.  Our  troubles  did  not 
begin  with  want  of  money  in  the  treas 
ury,  or  under  the  sapping  and  mining 
operation  of  the  compromise  act.  They 
are  of  earlier  date.  The  trouble  and 
distress  of  the  country  began  with  the 
currency  in  1833,  and  broke  out  with 
new  severity  in  1837.  Other  causes  of 
difficulty  have  since  arisen,  but  the  first 


great  shock  was  a  shock  on  the  cur 
rency;  and  from  the  effect  of  this  the 
country  is  not  yet  relieved.  I  hope  the 
late  act  may  yield  competent  revenue, 
and  am  sure  it  will  do  much  for  protec 
tion.  But  until  you  provide  a  better 
currency,  so  that  you  may  have  a  uni 
versal  one,  of  equal  and  general  value 
throughout  the  land,  I  am  hard  to  be 
persuaded  that  we  shall  see  the  day  of 
our  former  prosperity.  Currency,  ac 
credited  currency,  and  easy  and  cheap 
internal  exchanges,  — until  these  things 
be  obtained,  depend  upon  it,  the  coun 
try  will  find  no  adequate  relief. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  I  will  say  a 
word  or  two  on  the  history  of  the  trans 
actions  on  this  subject.  At  the  special 
session  of  Congress,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Mr.  Ewing,  arranged  a  plan 
for  a  national  bank.  That  plan,  was 
founded  upon  the  idea  of  a  large  capital, 
furnished  mainly  by  private  subscrip 
tions,  and  it  included  branches  for  local 
discounts.  I  need  not  advert,  Gentle 
men,  to  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  scheme  was  drawn  up,  and  received, 
as  it  did,  the  approbation  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  Cabinet,  as  the  best  thing  that 
could  be  done.  I  need  not  remind  you, 
that  he  whom  we  had  all  agreed  should 
hold  the  second  place  in  the  government 
had  been  called  to  the  head  of  it.  I 
need  not  say  that  he  held  opinions 
wholly  different  from  mine  on  the  sub 
jects  which  now  came  before  us.  But 
those  opinions  were  fixed,  and  therefore 
it  was  thought  the  part  of  wisdom  and 
prudence  not  to  see  how  strong  a  case 
might  be  made  against  the  President, 
but  to  get  along  as  well  as  we  might. 
With  such  views,  Mr.  Ewing  presented 
his  plan  to  Congress.  As  most  persons 
will  remember,  the  clause  allowing  the 
bank  to  establish  branches  provided  that 
those  branches  might  be  placed  in  any 
State  which  should  give  its  consent.  I 
have  no  idea  that  there  is  any  necessity 
for  such  a  restriction.  I  believe  Con 
gress  has  the  power  to  establish  the 
branches  without,  as  well  as  with,  the 
consent  of  the  States.  But  that  clause, 
at  most,  was  theoretical.  I  never  could 
find  anybody  who  could  show  any  prac- 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


491 


tical  mischief  resulting  from  it.  Its 
opponents  went  upon  the  theory,  which 
I  do  not  exactly  accord  with,  that  an 
omission  to  exercise  a  power,  in  any 
case,  amounts  to  a  surrender  of  that 
power.  At  any  rate,  it  was  the  best 
thing  that  could  be  done ;  and  its  rejec 
tion  was  the  commencement  of  the  dis 
astrous  dissensions  between  the  Presi 
dent  and  Congress. 

Gentlemen,  it  was  exceedingly  doubt 
ful  at  the  time  when  that  plan  was 
prepared  whether  the  capital  would  be 
subscribed.  But  we  did  what  we  could 
about  it.  We  asked  the  opinion  of  the 
leading  merchants  of  the  principal  com 
mercial  cities.  They  were  invited  to 
Washington  to  confer  with  us.  They 
expressed  doubts  whether  the  bank  could 
be  put  into  operation,  but  they  expressed 
hopes  also,  and  they  pledged  themselves 
to  do  the  best  they  could  to  advance  it. 
And  as  the  commercial  interests  were  in 
its  favor,  as  the  administration  was  new 
and  fresh  and  popular,  and  the  people 
were  desirous  to  have  something  done, 
a  great  earnestness  was  felt  that  that 
bill  should  be  tried. 

It  was  sent  to  the  Senate  at  the  Sen 
ate's  request,  and  by  the  Senate  it  was 
rejected.  Another  bill  was  reported  in 
the  Senate,  without  the  provision  requir 
ing  the  consent  of  the  States  to  branches, 
was  discussed  for  six  weeks  or  two 
months,  and  then  could  not  pass  even  a 
Whig  Senate.  Here  was  the  origin  of 
distrust,  disunion,  and  resentment. 

I  will  not  pursue  the  unhappy  narra 
tive  of  the  latter  part  of  the  session  of 
1841.  Men  had  begun  to  grow  excited 
and  angry  and  resentful.  I  expressed 
the  opinion,  at  an  early  period,  to  all 
those  to  whom  I  was  entitled  to  speak, 
that  it  would  be  a  great  deal  better  to 
forbear  further  action  at  present.  That 
opinion,  as  expressed  to  the  two  Whig- 
Senators  from  Massachusetts,  is  before 
the  public.  I  wished  Congress  to  give 
time  for  consultation  to  take  place,  for 
harmony  to  be  restored ;  because  I  looked 
for  no  good,  except  from  the  united  and 
harmonious  action  of  all  the  branches 
of  the  Whig  government.  I  suppose 
that  counsel  was  not  good,  certainly  it 


was  not  followed.     I  need  not  add  the 
comment. 

This  brings  us,  as  far  as  concerns  the 
questions  of  currency,  to  the  last  session 
of  Congress.  Early  in  that  session  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  sent  in  a  plan 
of  an  exchequer.  It  met  with  little 
favor  in  either  House,  and  therefore  it 
is  necessary  for  me,  Gentlemen,  lest  the 
whole  burden  fall  on  others,  to  say  that 
it  had  my  hearty,  sincere,  and  entire 
approbation.  Gentlemen,  I  hope  that  I 
have  not  manifested  through  my  public 
life  a  very  overweening  confidence  in  my 
own  judgment,  or  a  very  unreasonable 
unwillingness  to  accept  the  views  of 
others.  But  there  are  some  subjects  on 
which  I  feel  entitled  to  pay  some  respect 
to  my  own  opinion.  The  subject  of  cur 
rency,  Gentlemen,  has  been  the  study  of 
my  life.  Thirty  years  ago,  a  little  be 
fore  my  entrance  into  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  the  questions  connected 
with  a  mixed  currency,  involving  the 
proper  relation  of  paper  to  specie,  and 
the  proper  means  of  restricting  an  ex 
cessive  issue  of  paper,  came  to  be  dis 
cussed  by  the  most  acute  and  well-disci 
plined  understandings  in  England  in 
Parliament.  At  that  time,  during  the 
suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the 
bank,  when  paper  was  fifteen  per  cent 
below  par,  Mr.  Vansittart  had  presented 
his  celebrated  resolution,  declaring  that 
a  bank-note  was  still  worth  the  value 
expressed  on  its  face;  that  the  bank 
note  had  not  depreciated,  but  that  the 
price  of  bullion  had  risen.  Lord  Liver 
pool  and  Lord  Castlereagh  espoused  this 
view,  as  we  know,  and  it  was  opposed 
by  the  close  reasoning  of  Huskisson,  the 
powerful  logic  of  Homer,  and  the  prac 
tical  sagacity  and  common  sense  of  Al 
exander  Baring,  now  Lord  Ashburton. 
The  study  of  those  debates  made  me  a 
bullionist.  They  convinced  me  that 
paper  could  not  circulate  safely  in  any 
country,  any  longer  than  it  was  imme 
diately  redeemable  at  the  place  of  its 
issue.  Coming  into  Congress  the  very 
next  year,  or  the  next  but  one  after,  and 
finding  the  finances  of  the  country  in  a 
most  deplorable  condition,  I  then  and 
ever  after  devoted  myself,  in  preference 


492 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


to  all  other  public  topics,  to  the  consid 
eration  of  the  questions  relating  to  them. 
I  believe  I  have  read  every  thing  of 
value  that  has  been  published  since  on 
those  questions,  on  either  side  of  the 
Atlantic.  I  have  studied  by  close  obser 
vation  the  laws  of  paper  currency,  as 
they  have  exhibited  themselves  in  this 
and  in  other  countries,  from  1811  down 
to  the  present  time.  I  have  expressed 
my  opinions  at  various  times  in  Con 
gress,  and  some  of  the  predictions  which 
I  have  made  have  not  been  altogether 
falsified  by  subsequent  events.  I  must 
therefore  be  permitted,  Gentlemen,  with 
out  yielding  to  any  flippant  newspaper 
paragraph,  or  to  the  hasty  ebullitions  of 
debate  in  a  public  assembly,  to  say,  that 
1  believe  the  plan  for  an  exchequer,  as 
presented  to  Congress  at  its  last  session, 
is  the  best  measure,  the  only  measure 
for  the  adoption  of  Congress  and  the 
trial  of  the  people.  I  am  ready  to  stake 
my  reputation  upon  it,  and  that  is  all 
that  I  have  to  stake.  1  am  ready  to 
stake  my  reputation,  that,  if  this  Whig 
Congress  will  take  that  measure  and 
give  it  a  fair  trial,  within  three  .years  it 
will  be  admitted  by  the  whole  American 
people  to  be  the  most  beneficial  measure 
of  any  sort  ever  adopted  in  this  country, 
the  Constitution  only  excepted. 

I  mean  that  they  should  take  it  as  it 
was  when  it  came  from  the  Cabinet,  not 
as  it  looked  when  the  committees  of 
Congress  had  laid  their  hands  upon  it. 
For  when  the  committees  of  Congress 
had  struck  out  the  proviso  respecting 
exchange,  it  was  not  worth  a  rush;  it 
was  not  worth  the  parchment  it  would 
be  engrossed  upon.  The  great  desire  of 
this  country  is  a  general  currency,  a 
facility  of  exchange;  a  currency  which 
shall  be  the  same  for  you  and  for  the 
people  of  Alabama  and  Louisiana,  and 
a  system  of  exchange  which  shall  equal 
ize  credit  between  them  and  you,  with 
the  rapidity  and  facility  with  which 
steam  conveys  men  and  merchandise. 
That  is  what  the  country  wants,  what 
you  want;  and  you  have  not  got  it. 
You  have  not  got  it,  you  cannot  get  it, 
but  by  some  adequate  provision  of  gov 
ernment.  Exchange,  ready  exchange, 


that  will  enable  a  man  to  turn  his  New 
Orleans  means  into  money  to-day,  (as 
we  havfc  had  in  better  times  millions  a 
year  exchanged,  at  only  three  quarters 
of  one  per  cent,)  is  what  is  wanted. 
How  are  we  to  obtain  this?  A  Bank 
of  the  United  States  founded  on  a  pri 
vate  subscription  is  out  of  the  question. 
That  is  an  obsolete  idea.  The  country 
and  the  condition  of  things  have  changed. 
Suppose  that  a  bank  were  chartered  with 
a  capital  of  fifty  millions,  to  be  raised 
by  private  subscription.  Would  it  not 
be  out  of  all  possibility  to  find  the 
money?  Who  would  subscribe?  What 
would  you  get  for  shares?  And  as  for 
the  local  discount,  do  you  wish  it  ?  Do 
you,  in  State  Street,  wish  that  the  na 
tion  should  send  millions  of  untaxed 
banking  capital  hither  to  increase  your 
discounts?  What,  then,  shall  we  do? 
People  who  are  waiting  for  power  to 
make  a  Bank  of  the  United  States  may 
as  well  postpone  all  attempts  to  benefit 
the  country  to  the  incoming  of  the 
Jews. 

What,  then,  shall  we  do?  Let  us 
turn  to  this  plan  of  the  exchequer, 
brought  forward  last  year.  It  was  as 
sailed  from  all  quarters.  One  gentle 
man  did  say,  I  believe,  that  by  some 
possibility  some  good  might  come  out  of 
it,  but  in  general  it  met  with  a  different 
opposition  from  every  different  class. 
Some  said  it  would  be  a  perfectly  life 
less  machine,  —  that  it  was  no  system 
at  all, — that  it  would  do  nothing,  for 
good  or  evil;  others  thought  that  it  had 
a  great  deal  too  much  vitality,  admit 
ting  that  it  would  answer  the  purpose 
perfectly  well  for  which  it  was  designed, 
but  fearing  that  it  would  increase  the 
executive  power:  thus  making  it  at  once 
King  Log  and  King  Serpent.  One  party 
called  it  a  ridiculous  imbecility;  the 
other,  a  dangerous  giant,  that  might 
subvert  the  Constitution.  These  varied 
arguments,  contradicting,  if  not  refut 
ing,  one  another,  convinced  me  of  one 
thing  at  least,  —  that  the  bill  would  not 
be  adopted,  nor  even  temperately  and 
candidly  considered.  And  it  was  not. 
In  a  manner  quite  unusual,  it  was  dis 
cussed,  assailed,  denounced,  before  it 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


493 


was  allowed  to  take  the  course  of  refer 
ence  and  examination. 

The  difficulties  we  meet  in  carrying 
out  our  system  of  constitutional  govern 
ment  are  indeed  extraordinary.  The 
Constitution  was  intended  as  an  instru 
ment  of  great  political  good;  but  we 
sometimes  so  dispute  its  meaning,  that 
we  cannot  use  it  at  all.  One  man  will 
not  have  a  bank,  without  the  power  of 
local  discount,  against  the  consent  of 
the  States;  for  that,  he  insists,  would 
break  the  Constitution.  Another  will 
not  have  a  bank  with  such  a  power,  be 
cause  he  thinks  that  would  break  the 
Constitution.  A  third  will  not  have  an 
exchequer,  with  authority  to  deal  in 
exchanges,  because  that  would  increase 
executive  influence,  and  so  might  break 
the  Constitution.  And  between  them 
all,  we  are  like  the  boatman  who,  in  the 
midst  of  rocks  and  currents  and  whirl 
pools,  will  not  pull  one  stroke  for  safety, 
lest  he  break  his  oar.  Are  we  now  look 
ing  for  the  time  when  we  can  charter  a 
United  States  Bank  with  a  large  private 
subscription?  When  will  that  be?  When 
confidence  is  restored.  Are  we,  then, 
to  do  nothing  to  save  the  vessel  from 
sinking,  till  the  chances  of  the  winds  and 
waves  have  landed  us  on  the  shore? 
He  is  more  sanguine  than  I  am,  who 
thinks  that  the  time  will  soon  come 
when  the  Whigs  have  more  power  to 
work  effectually  for  the  good  of  the 
country  than  they  now  have.  The  voice 
of  patriotism  calls  upon  them  not  to 
postpone,  but  to  act  at  this  moment,  at 
the  very  next  session ;  to  make  the  best 
of  their  means,  and  to  try.  You  say 
that  the  administration  is  responsible; 
why  not,  then,  try  the  plan  it  has  rec 
ommended.  If  it  fails,  let  the  President 
bear  the  responsibility.  If  you  will  not 
try  this  plan,  why  not  propose  some 
thing  else? 

Gentlemen,  in  speaking  of  events  that 
have  happened,  I  ought  to  say,  and  will, 
since  I  am  making  a  full  and  free  com 
munication,  that  there  is  no  one  of  my 
age,  and  I  am  no  longer  very  young, 
who  has  written  or  spoken  more  against 
the  abuse  and  indiscreet  use  of  the  veto 
power  than  I  have.  And  there  is  no 


one  whose  opinions  upon  this  subject 
are  less  changed.  I  presume  it  is  uni 
versally  known,  that  I  have  advised 
against  the  use  of  the  veto  power  on 
every  occasion  when  it  has  been  used 
since  I  have  been  in  the  Cabinet.  But 
I  am,  nevertheless,  not  willing  to  join 
those  who  seem  more  desirous  to  make 
out  a  case  against  the  President,  than 
of  serving  their  country  to  the  extent 
of  their  ability,  vetoes  notwithstanding. 
Indeed,  at  the  close  of  the  extra  session, 
the  received  doctrine  of  many  seemed  to 
be,  that  they  would  undertake  nothing 
until  they  could  amend  the  Constitution 
so  as  to  do  away  with  this  power.  This 
was  mere  mockery.  If  we  were  now 
reforming  the  Constitution,  we  might 
wish  for  some,  I  dp  not  say  what,  guards 
and  restraints  upon  this  power  more 
than  the  Constitution  at  present  con 
tains  ;  but  no  convention  would  recom 
mend  striking  it  out  altogether.  Have 
not  the  people  of  New  York  lately 
amended  their  constitution,  so  as  to  re 
quire,  in  certain  legislative  action,  votes 
of  two  thirds?  and  is  not  this  same  re 
striction  in  daily  use  in  the  national 
House  of  Representatives  itself,  in  the 
case  of  suspension  of  the  rules?  This 
constitutional  power,  therefore,  is  no 
greater  a  restraint  than  this  body  im 
poses  on  itself.  But  it  is  utterly  hope 
less  to  look  for  such  an  amendment; 
who  expects  to  live  to  see  its  day?  And 
to  give  up  all  practical  efforts,  and  to  go 
on  with  a  general  idea  that  the  Consti 
tution  must  be  amended  before  any 
thing  can  be  done,  was,  I  will  not  say 
trifling,  but  treating  the  great  necessities 
of  the  people  as  of  quite  too  little  impor 
tance.  This  Congress  accomplished,  in 
this  regard,  nothing  for  the  people.  The 
exchequer  plan  which  was  submitted  to 
it  will  accomplish  some  of  the  objects  of 
the  people,  and  especially  the  Whig  peo 
ple.  I  am  confident  of  it;  I  know  it. 
When  a  mechanic  makes  a  tool,  an  axe, 
a  saw,  or  a  plane,  and  knows  that  the 
temper  is  good  and  the  parts  are  well 
proportioned,  he  knows  that  it  will  an 
swer  its  purpose.  And  I  know  that  this 
plan  will  answer  its  purpose. 

There  are  other  objects  which  ought 


494 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


not  to  be  neglected,  among  which  is  one 
of  such  importance  that  I  will  not  now 
pass  it  by;  I  mean,  the  mortifying  state 
of  the  public  credit  of  this  country  at 
this  time.  I  cannot  help  thinking,  that 
if  the  statesmen  of  a  former  age  were 
among  us,  if  Washington  were  here,  if 
John  Adams,  and  Hamilton,  and  Madi 
son  were  here,  they  would  be  deeply 
concerned  and  soberly  thoughtful  about 
the  present  state  of  the  public  credit  of 
the  country.  In  the  position  I  fill,  it 
becomes  my  duty  to  read,  generally  with 
pleasure,  but  sometimes  with  pain,  com 
munications  from  our  public  agents 
abroad.  It  is  distressing  to  hear  them 
speak  of  their  distress  at  what  they  see 
and  hear  of  the  scorn  and  contumely 
with  which  the  American  character  and 
American  credit  are  treated  abroad. 
Why,  at  this  very  time,  we  have  a  loan 
in  the  market,  which,  at  the  present 
rate  of  money  and  credit,  ought  to  com 
mand  in  Europe  one  hundred  and  twen 
ty-five  per  cent.  Can  we  sell  a  dollar 
of  it?  And  how  is  it  with  the  credit  of 
our  own  Commonwealth?  Does  it  not 
find  itself  affected  in  its  credit  by  the 
general  state  of  the  credit  of  the  coun 
try  ?  Is  there  nobody  ready  to  make  a 
movement  in  this  matter  ?  Is  there  not 
a  man  in  our  councils  large  enough, 
comprehensive  enough  in  his  views,  to 
undertake  at  least  to  present  this  case 
before  the  American  people,  and  thus 
do  something  to  restore  the  public  char 
acter  for  morals  and  honesty? 

There  are  in  the  country  some  men 
who  are  indiscreet  enough  to  talk  of 
repudiation,  —  to  advise  their  fellow- 
citizens  to  repudiate  public  debt.  Does 
repudiation  pay  a  debt?  Does  it  dis 
charge  the  debtor?  Can  it  so  modify  a 
debt  that  it  shall  not  be  always  binding, 
in  law  as  well  as  in  morals?  No,  Gen 
tlemen;  repudiation  does  nothing  but 
add  a  sort  of  disrepute  to  acknowledged 
inability.  It  is  our  duty,  so  far  as  is  in 
our  power,  to  rouse  the  public  feeling 
on  the  subject;  to  maintain  and  assert 
the  universal  principles  of  law  and  jus 
tice,  and  the  importance  of  preserving 
public  faith  and  credit.  People  say 
that  the  intelligent  capitalists  of  Europe 


ought  to  distinguish  between  the  United 
States  government  and  the  State  gov 
ernments.  So  they  ought ;  but,  Gen 
tlemen,  what  does  all  this  amount  to  ? 
Does  not  the  general  government  com 
prise  the  same  people  who  make  up  the 
State  governments?  May  not  these 
Europeans  ask  us  how  long  it  may  be 
before  the  national  councils  will  repudi 
ate  public  obligations  ? 

The  doctrine  of  repudiation  has  in 
flicted  upon  us  a  stain  which  we  ought 
to  feel  worse  than  a  wound;  and  the 
time  has  come  when  every  man  ought  to 
address  himself  soberly  and  seriously  to 
the  correction  of  this  great  existing  evil. 
I  do  not  undertake  to  say  what  the  Con 
stitution  allows  Congress  to  do  in  the 
premises.  I  will  only  say,  that  if  that 
great  fund  of  the  public  domain  prop 
erly  and  in  equity  belongs,  as  is  main 
tained,  to  the  States  themselves,  there 
are  some  means,  by  regular  and  consti 
tutional  laws,  to  enable  and  induce  the 
States  to  save  their  own  credit  and  the 
credit  of  the  country. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  detained  you  much 
too  long.  I  have  wished  to  say,  that, 
in  my  judgment,  there  remain  certain 
important  objects  to  engage  our  public 
and  private  attention,  in  the  national 
affairs  of  the  country.  These  are,  the 
settlement  of  the  remaining  questions 
between  ourselves  and  England;  the 
great  questions  relating  to  the  reciproci 
ty  principle;  those  relating  to  colonial 
trade ;  the  most  absorbing  questions  of 
the  currency,  and  those  relating  to  the 
great  subject  of  the  restoration  of  the 
national  character  and  the  public  faith; 
these  are  all  objects  to  which  I  am  will 
ing  to  devote  myself,  both  in  public  and  in 
private  life.  I  do  not  expect  that  much 
of  public  service  remains  to  be  done  by 
me;  but  I  am  ready,  for  the  promotion 
of  these  objects,  to  act  with  sober  men 
of  any  party,  and  of  all  parties.  I  am 
ready  to  act  with  men  who  are  free  from 
that  great  danger  that  surrounds  all  men 
of  all  parties,  —  the  danger  that  patriot 
ism  itself,  warmed  and  heated  in  party 
contests,  will  run  into  partisanship.  I 
believe  that,  among  the  sober  men  of 
this  country,  there  is  a  growing  desire 


RECEPTION  AT  BOSTON. 


495 


for  more  moderation  of  party  feeling, 
more  predominance  of  purely  public 
considerations,  more  honest  and  general 
union  of  well-meaning  men  of  all  sides 
to  uphold  the  institutions  of  the  country 
and  carry  them  forward. 


In  the  pursuit  of  these  objects,  in 
public  life  or  in  a  private  station,  I  am 
willing  to  perform  the  part  assigned  to 
me,  and  to  give  them,  with  hearty  good 
will  and  zealous  effort,  all  that  may  re 
main  to  me  of  strength  and  life. 


THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  ON  THE  22o  OF  DECEMBER,  1843,  AT  THE  PUBLIC 
DINNER  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY  OF  NEW  YORK,  IN  COMMEMO 
RATION  OF  THE  LANDING  OF  THE  PILGRIMS. 


[THE  great  Pilgrim  festival  was  cele 
brated  on  the  22d  of  December,  1843,  by  the 
New  England  Society  of  New  York,  with 
uncommon  spirit  and  success.  A  commem 
orative  oration  was  delivered  in  the  morn 
ing  by  Hon.  Rufus  Choate,  in  a  style  of 
eloquence  rarely  equalled.  The  public 
dinner  of  the  Society,  at  the  Astor  House, 
at  which  M.  H.  Grinnell,  Esq.  presided, 
was  attended  by  a  very  large  company, 
composed  of  the  members  of  the  Society 
and  their  invited  guests.  Several  appro 
priate  toasts  having  been  given  and  re 
sponded  to  by  the  distinguished  individuals 
present,  George  Griswold,  Esq.  rose  to 
offer  one  in  honor  of  Mr.  Webster.  After 
a  few  remarks  complimentary  to  that  gen 
tleman,  in  reference  to  his  services  in  refut 
ing  the  doctrine  of  nullification  and  in 
averting  the  danger  of  war  by  the  treaty 
of  Washington,  Mr.  Griswold  gave  the 
following  toast :  — 

"DANIEL  WEBSTER,  —  the  gift  of  New 
England  to  his  country,  his  whole  country, 
and  nothing  but  his  country." 

This  was  received  with  great  applause, 
and  on  rising  to  respond  to  it  Mr.  Webster 
was  greeted  with  nine  enthusiastic  cheers, 
and  the  most  hearty  and  prolonged  appro 
bation.  When  silence  was  restored,  he 
spoke  as  follows.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT: — I  have  a  grate 
ful  duty  to  perform  in  acknowledging 
the  kindness  of  the  sentiment  thus  ex 
pressed  towards  me.  And  yet  I  must 
say,  Gentlemen,  that  I  rise  upon  this 
occasion  under  a  consciousness  that  I 
may  probably  disappoint  highly  raised, 
too  highly  raised  expectations.  In  the 
scenes  of  this  evening,  and  in  the  scene  of 
this  day,  my  part  is  an  humble  one.  I  can 


enter  into  no  competition  with  the  f  resher 
geniuses  of  those  more  eloquent  gentle 
men,  learned  and  reverend,  who  have 
addressed  this  Society.  I  may  perform, 
however,  the  humbler,  but  sometimes 
useful,  duty  of  contrast,  by  adding  the 
dark  ground  of  the  picture,  which  shall 
serve  to  bring  out  the  more  brilliant 
colors. 

I  must  receive,  Gentlemen,  the  senti 
ment  proposed  by  the  worthy  and  dis 
tinguished  citizen  of  New  York  before 
me,  as  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that, 
as  a  citizen  of  New  England,  as  a  son, 
a  child,  a  creation  of  New  England,  I 
may  be  yet  supposed  to  entertain,  in 
some  degree,  that  enlarged  view  of  rny 
duty  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
and  as  a  public  man,  which  may,  in 
some  small  measure,  commend  rue  to  the 
regard  of  the  whole  country.  While  I 
am  free  to  confess.  Gentlemen,  that 
there  is  no  compliment  of  which  I  am 
more  desirous  to  be  thought  worthy,  I 
will  add,  that  a  compliment  of  that  kind 
could  have  proceeded  from  no  source 
more  agreeable  to  my  own  feelings  than 
from  the  gentleman  who  has  proposed 
it,  —  an  eminent  merchant,  the  member 
of  a  body  of  eminent  merchants,  known 
throughout  the  world  for  their  intelli 
gence  and  enterprise.  I  the  more  espe 
cially  feel  this,  Gentlemen,  because, 
whether  I  view  the  present  state  of 
things  or  recur  to  the  history  of  the  past, 


THE  LANDING  AT   PLYMOUTH. 


497 


I  can  in  neither  case  be  ignorant  how 
much  that  profession,  and  its  distin 
guished  members,  from  an  early  day 
of  our  history,  have  contributed  to  make 
the  country  what  it  is,  and  the  govern 
ment  what  it  is. 

Gentlemen,  the  free  nature  of  our 
institutions,  and  the  popular  form  of 
those  governments  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  Rock  of  Plymouth, 
give  scope  to  intelligence,  to  talent,  en 
terprise,  and  public  spirit,  from  all 
classes  making  up  the  great  body  of  the 
community.  And  the  country  has  re 
ceived  benefit  in  all  its  history  and  in  all 
its  exigencies,  of  the  most  eminent  and 
striking  character,  from  persons  of  the 
class  to  which  my  friend  before  me  be 
longs.  Who  will  ever  forget  that  the 
first  name  signed  to  our  ever-memorable 
and  ever-glorious  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  is  the  name  of  John  Hancock, 
a  merchant  of  Boston?  Who  will  ever 
forget  that,  in  the  most  disastrous  days 
of  the  Revolution,  when  the  treasury  of 
the  country  was  bankrupt,  with  unpaid 
navies  and  starving  armies,  it  was  a  mer 
chant,  —  Robert  Morris  of  Philadelphia, 
—  who,  by  a  noble  sacrifice  of  his  own 
fortune,  as  well  as  by  the  exercise  of  his 
great  financial  abilities,  sustained  and 
supported  the  wise  men  of  the  country  in 
council,  and  the  brave  men  of  the  coun 
try  in  the  field  of  battle?  Nor  are  there 
wanting  more  recent  instances.  I  have 
the  pleasure  to  see  near  me,  and  near 
my  friend  who  proposed  this  sentiment, 
the  son  of  an  eminent  merchant  of  New 
England  (Mr.  Goodhue),  an  early  mem 
ber  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
always  consulted,  always  respected,  in 
whatever  belonged  to  the  duty  and  the 
means  of  putting  in  operation  the  finan 
cial  and  commercial  system  of  the  coun 
try;  and  this  mention  of  the  father  of 
my  friend  brings  to  my  mind  the  mem 
ory  of  his  great  colleague,  the  early 
associate  of  Hamilton  and  of  Ames, 
trusted  and  beloved  by  Washington, 
consulted  on  all  occasions  connected  with 
the  administration  of  the  finances,  the 
establishment  of  the  treasury  depart 
ment,  the  imposition  of  the  first  rates 
of  duty,  and  with  every  thing  that 


belonged  to  the  commercial  system  of 
the  United  States,  —  George  Cabot,  of 
Massachusetts. 

I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say,  Gen 
tlemen,  that  there  is  no  truth  better 
developed  and  established  in  the  history 
of  the  United  States,  from  the  forma 
tion  of  the  Constitution  to  the  present 
time,  than  this, — that  the  mercantile 
classes,  the  great  commercial  masses  of 
the  country,  whose  affairs  connect  them 
strongly  with  every  State  in  the  Union 
and  with  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
whose  business  and  profession  give  a 
sort  of  nationality  to  their  character,  — 
that  no  class  of  men  among  us,  from  the 
beginning,  have  shown  a  stronger  and 
firmer  devotion  to  whatsoever  has  been 
designed,  or  to  whatever  has  tended,  to 
preserve  the  union  of  these  States  and 
the  stability  of  the  free  government  un 
der  which  we  live.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  regard  to  the  vari 
ous  municipal  regulations  and  local  in 
terests,  has  left  the  States  individual, 
disconnected,  isolated.  It  has  left  them 
their  own  codes  of  criminal  law;  it  has 
left  them  their  own  system  of  municipal 
regulations.  But  there  was  one  great 
interest,  one  great  concern,  which,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  was  no 
longer  to  be  left  under  the  regulations 
of  the  then  thirteen,  afterwards  twenty, 
and  now  twenty-six  States,  but  was  com 
mitted,  necessarily  committed,  to  the 
care,  the  protection,  and  the  regulation 
of  one  government;  and  this  was  that 
great  unit,  as  it  has  been  called,  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States.  There 
is  no  commerce  of  New  York,  no  com 
merce  of  Massachusetts,  none  of  Georgia, 
none  of  Alabama  or  Louisiana.  All  and 
singular,  in  the  aggregate  and  in  all  its 
parts,  is  the  commerce  of  the  LTnited 
States,  regulated  at  home  by  a  uniform 
system  of  laws  under  the  authority  of 
the  general  government,  and  protected 
abroad  under  the  flag  of  our  govern 
ment,  the  glorious  E  Pluribns  Unum, 
and  guarded,  if  need  be,  by  the  power 
of  the  general  government  all  over  the 
World.  There  is,  therefore,  Gentlemen, 
nothing  more  cementing,  nothing  that 
makes  us  more  cohesive,  nothing  that 


498 


THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 


more  repels  all  tendencies  to  separation 
and  dismemberment,  than  this  great, 
this  common,  I  may  say  this  overwhelm 
ing  interest  of  one  commerce,  one  gen 
eral  system  of  trade  and  navigation,  one 
everywhere  and  with  every  nation  of  the 
globe.  There  is  no  flag  of  any  partic 
ular  American  State  seen  in  the  Pacific 
seas,  or  in  the  Baltic,  or  in  the  Indian 
Ocean.  Who  knows,  or  who  hears, 
there  of  your  proud  State,  or  of  my 
proud  State?  Who  knows,  or  who  hears, 
of  any  thing,  at  the  extremest  north  or 
south,  or  at  the  antipodes,  —  in  the  re 
motest  regions  of  the  Eastern  or  West 
ern  Sea,  —  who  ever  hears,  or  knows,  of 
any  thing  but  an  American  ship,  or  of 
any  American  enterprise  of  a  commercial 
character  that  does  not  bear  the  impres 
sion  of  the  American  Union  with  it? 

It  would  be  a  presumption  of  which 
I  cannot  be  guilty,  Gentlemen,  for  me 
to  imagine  for  a  moment,  that,  among 
the  gifts  which  New  England  has  made 
to  our  common  country,  I  am  any  thing 
more  than  one  of  the  most  inconsidera 
ble.  I  readily  bring  to  mind  the  great 
men,  not  only  with  whom  I  have  met, 
but  those  of  the  generation  before  me, 
who  now  sleep  with  their  fathers,  distin 
guished  in  the  Revolution,  distinguished 
in  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  and 
in  the  early  administration  of  the  gov 
ernment,  always  and  everywhere  dis 
tinguished  ;  and  I  shrink  in  just  and 
conscious  humiliation  before  their  es 
tablished  character  and  established  re 
nown  ;  and  all  that  I  venture  to  say, 
and  all  that  I  venture  to  hope  may! 
be  thought  true,  in  the  sentiment  pro- 
posed,  is,  that,  so  far  as  mind  and 
purpose,  so  far  as  intention  and  will, 
are  concerned,  I  may  be  found  among 
those  who  are  capable  of  embracing  the 
whole  country  of  which  they  are  mem 
bers  in  a  proper,  comprehensive,  and 
patriotic  regard.  We  all  know  that  the 
objects  which  are  nearest  are  the  objects 
which  are  dearest  ;  family  affections, 
neighborhood  affections,  social  rela 
tions,  these  in  truth  are  nearest  and 
dearest  to  us  all  ;  but  whosoever  shall 
be  able  rightly  to  adjust  the  gradu 
ation  of  his  affections,  and  to  love  his 


friends  and  his  neighbors,  and  his  coun 
try,  as  he  ought  to  love  them,  merits  the 
commendation  pronounced  by  the  philo 
sophic  poet  upon  him 

"Qui  didicit  patriae   quid  debeat,  et  quid 
amicis." 

Gentlemen,  it  has  been  my  fortune, 
in  the  little  part  which  I  have  acted  in 
public  life,  for  good  or  for  evil  to  the 
community-,  to  be  connected  entirely 
with  that  government  which,  within  the 
limits  of  constitutional  power,  exercises 
jurisdiction  over  all  the  States  and  all 
the  people.  My  friend  at  the  end  of  the 
table  on  my  left  has  spoken  pleasantly 
to  us  to-night  of  the  reputed  miracles 
of  tutelar  saints.  In  a  sober  sense,  in  a 
sense  of  deep  conviction,  I  say  that  the 
emergence  of  this  country  from  British 
domination,  and  its  union  under  its 
present  form  of  government  beneath 
the  general  Constitution  of  the  coun 
try,  if  not  a  miracle,  is,  1  do  not  say 
the  most,  but  one  of  the  most  fortu 
nate,  the  most  admirable,  the  most  aus 
picious  occurrences,  wrhich  have  ever 
fallen  to  the  lot  of  man.  Circumstances 
have  wrought  out  for  us  a  state  of  things 
which,  in  other  times  and  other  regions, 
philosophy  has  dreamed  of,  and  theory 
has  proposed,  and  speculation  has  sug 
gested,  but  which  man  has  never  been 
able  to  accomplish.  I  mean  the  govern 
ment  of  a  great  nation  over  a  vastly 
[extended  portion  of  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  by  means  of  local  institutions  for 
local  purposes,  and  general  institutions  for 
general  purposes.  I  know  of  nothing  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  notwithstand 
ing  the  great  league  of  Grecian  states, 
notwithstanding  the  success  of  the  Ro 
man  system,  (and  certainly  there  is  no 
exception  to  the  remark  in  modern  his 
tory,) —  I  know  of  nothing  so  suitable 
on  the  whole  for  the  great  interests  of  a 
great  people  spread  over  a  large  portion 
of  the  globe,  as  the  provision  of  local 
legislation  for  local  and  municipal  pur 
poses,  with,  not  a  confederacy,  nor  a  loose 
binding  together  of  separate  parts,  but 
a  limited,  positive  general  government 
for  positive  general  purposes,  over  the 
whole.  We  may  derive  eminent  proofs 
of  this  truth  from  the  past  and  the  pres- 


THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 


499 


ent.  What  see  we  to-day  in  the  agita 
tions  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic? 
I  speak  of  them,  of  course,  without  ex 
pressing  any  opinion  on  questions  of 
politics  in  a  foreign  country  ;  but  I 
speak  of  them  as  an  occurrence  which 
shows  the  great  expediency,  the  utility, 
I  may  say  the  necessity,  of  local  legis 
lation.  If,  in  a  country  on  the  other 
side  of  the  water  (Ireland),  there  be 
some  who  desire  a  severance  of  one  part 
of  the  empire  from  another,  under  a 
proposition  of  repeal,  there  are  others 
who  propose  a  continuance  of  the  ex 
isting  relation  under  a  federative  sys 
tem:  and  what  is  this?  No  more,  and 
no  less,  than  an  approximation  to  that 
system  under  which  we  live,  which  for 
local,  municipal  purposes  shall  have  a 
local  legislature,  and  for  general  pur 
poses  a  general  legislature. 

This  becomes  the  more  important 
when  we  consider  that  the  United  States 
stretch  over  so  many  degrees  of  latitude, 
—  that  they  embrace  such  a  variety  of 
climate, — that  various  conditions  and 
relations  of  society  naturally  call  for  dif 
ferent  laws  and  regulations.  Let  me  ask 
whether  the  legislature  ^of  New  York 
could  wisely  pass  laws  for  the  govern 
ment  of  Louisiana,  or  whether  the  legis 
lature  of  Louisiana  could  wisely  pass 
laws  for  Pennsylvania  or  New  York? 
Everybody  will  say,  "No."  And  yet 
the  interests  of  New  York  and  Pennsyl 
vania  and  Louisiana,  in  whatever  con 
cerns  their  relations  between  themselves 
and  their  general  relations  with  all  the 
states  of  the  world,  are  found  to  be  per 
fectly  well  provided  for,  and  adjusted 
with  perfect  congruity,  by  committing 
these  general  interests  to  one  common 
government,  the  result  of  popular  gen 
eral  elections  among  them  all. 

I  confess,  Gentlemen,  that  having 
been,  as  I  have  said,  in  my  humble 
career  in  public  life,  employed  in  that 
portion  of  the  public  service  which  is 
connected  with  the  general  government, 
I  have  contemplated,  as  the  great  ob 
ject  of  every  proceeding,  not  only  the 
particular  benefit  of  the  moment,  or  the 
exigency  of  the  occasion,  but  the  preser 
vation  of  this  system;  for  I  do  consider 


it  so  much  the  result  of  circumstances, 
and  that  so  much  of  it  is  due  to  for 
tunate  concurrence,  as  well  as  to  the 
sagacity  of  the  great  men  acting  upon 
those  occasions, — that  it  is  an  experi 
ment  of  such  remarkable  and  renowned 
success,  —  that  he  is  a  fool  or  a  mad 
man  who  would  wish  to  try  that  experi 
ment  a  second  time.  I  see  to-day,  and  we 
all  see,  that  the  descendants  of  the  Puri 
tans  who  landed  upon  the  Rock  of  Ply 
mouth;  the  followers  of  Raleigh,  who 
settled  Virginia  and  North  Carolina;  he 
who  lives  where  the  truncheon  of  em 
pire,  so  to  speak,  was  borne  by  Smith ; 
the  inhabitants  of  Georgia ;  he  who  set 
tled  under  the  auspices  of  France  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi;  the  Swede  on 
the  Delaware,  the  Quaker  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  —  all  find,  at  this  day,  their  com 
mon  interest,  their  common  protection, 
their  common  glory,  under  the  united 
government,  which  leaves  them  all, 
nevertheless,  in  the  administration  of 
their  own  municipal  and  local  affairs, 
to  be  Frenchmen,  or  Swedes,  or  Quak 
ers,  or  whatever  they  choose.  And  when 
one  considers  that  this  system  of  gov 
ernment,  I  will  not  say  has  produced, 
because  God  and  nature  and  circum 
stances  have  had  an  agency  in  it,  — but 
when  it  is  considered  that  this  system 
has  not  prevented,  but  has  rather  en 
couraged,  the  growth  of  the  people  of 
this  country  from  three  millions,  on  the 
glorious  4th  of  July,  1776,  to  seventeen 
millions  now,  who  is  there  that  will  say, 
upon  this  hemisphere,  —  nay,  who  is 
there  that  will  stand  up  in  any  hemi 
sphere,  who  is  there  in  any  part  of  the 
world,  that  will  say  that  the  great  ex 
periment  of  a  united  republic  has  failed 
in  America?  And  yet  I  know,  Gentle 
men,  I  feel,  that  this  united  system  is 
held  together  by  strong  tendencies  to 
union,  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  kept 
from  too  much  leaning  toward  consoli 
dation  by  a  strong  tendency  in  the  sev 
eral  States  to  support  each  its  own 
power  and  consideration.  In  the  physi 
cal  world  it  is  said,  that 

"All  nature's  difference  keeps  all  nature's 

peace," 
and  there  is  in  the  political  world  this 


500 


THE   LANDING   AT  PLYMOUTH. 


same  harmonious  difference,  this  regu 
lar  play  of  the  positive  and  negative 
powers,  (if  I  may  so  say,)  which,  at 
least  for  one  glorious  half-century,  has 
kept  us  as  we  have  been  kept,  and  made 
us  what  we  are. 

But,  Gentlemen,  I  must  not  allow  my 
self  to  pursue  this  topic.  It  is  a  senti 
ment  so  commonly  repeated  by  me  upon 
all  public  occasions,  and  upon  all  pri 
vate  occasions,  and  everywhere,  that  I 
forbear  to  dwell  upon  it  now.  It  is  the 
union  of  these  States,  it  is  the  system 
of  government  under  which  we  live,  be 
neath  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  happily  framed,  wisely  adopted, 
successfully  administered  for  fifty  years, 
—  it  is  mainly  this,  I  say,  that  gives  us 
power  at  home  and  credit  abroad.  And, 
for  one,  I  never  stop  to  consider  the 
power  or  wealth  or  greatness  of  a  State. 
I  tell  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  care  nothing 
for  your  Empire  State  as  such.  Dela 
ware  and  Rhode  Island  are  as  high  in 
my  regard  as  New  York.  In  popula 
tion,  in  power,  in  the  government  over 
us,  you  have  a  greater  share.  You 
would  have  the  same  share  if  you  were 
divided  into  forty  States.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  as  a  State  sovereignty,  it  is 
only  because  New  York  is  a  vast  por 
tion  of  the  whole  American  people,  that 
I  regard  this  State,  as  I  always  shall 
regard  her,  as  respectable  and  honora 
ble.  But  among  State  sovereignties 
there  is  no  preference;  there  is  nothing 
high  and  nothing  low;  every  State  is 
independent  and  every  State  is  equal. 
If  we  depart  from  this  great  principle, 
then  are  we  no  longer  one  people;  but 
we  are  thrown  back  again  upon  the  Con 
federation,  and  upon  that  state  of  things 
in  which  the  inequality  of  the  States 
produced  all  the  evils  which  befell  us  in 
times  past,  and  a  thousand  ill-adjusted 
and  jarring  interests. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish,  then,  without 
pursuing  these  thoughts,  without  espe 
cially  attempting  to  produce  any  fervid 
impression  by  dwelling  upon  them,  to 
take  this  occasion  to  answer  my  friend 
who  has  proposed  the  sentiment,  and  to 
respond  to  it  by  saying,  that  whoever 
would  serve  his  country  in  this  our  day, 


with  whatever  degree  of  talent,  great  or 
small,  it  may  have  pleased  the  Almighty 
Power  to*give  him,  he  cannot  serve  it, 
he  will  not  serve  it,  unless  he  be  able, 
at  least,  to  extend  his  political  designs, 
purposes,  and  objects,  till  they  shall 
comprehend  the  whole  country  of  which 
he  is  a  servant. 

Sir,  I  must  say  a  word  in  connection 
with  that  event  which  we  have  assem 
bled  to  commemorate.  It  has  seemed 
fit  to  the  dwellers  in  New  York,  New- 
Englanders  by  birth  or  descent,  to  form 
this  society.  They  have  formed  it  for 
the  relief  of  the  poor  and  distressed, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  commemorating 
annually  the  great  event  of  the  settle 
ment  of  the  country  from  which  they 
spring.  It  would  be  great  presumption 
in  me  to  go  back  to  the  scene  of  that 
settlement,  or  to  attempt  to  exhibit  it 
in  any  colors,  after  the  exhibition  made 
to-day;  yet  it  is  an  event  that  in  all 
time  since,  and  in  all  time  to  come, 
and  more  in  times  to  come  than  in 
times  past,  must  stand  out  in  great 
and  striking  characteristics  to  the  ad 
miration  of  the  world.  The  sun's  re 
turn  to  his  winter  solstice,  in  1620,  is 
the  epoch  from  which  he  dates  his  first 
acquaintance  with  the  small  people,  now 
one  of  the  happiest,  and  destined  to  be 
one  of  the  greatest,  that  his  rays  fall 
upon;  and  his  annual  visitation,  from 
that  day  to  this,  to  our  frozen  region, 
has  enabled  him  to  see  that  progress, 
progress,  was  the  characteristic  of  that 
small  people.  He  has  seen  them  from  a 
handful,  that  one  of  his  beams  coming 
through  a  key-hole  might  illuminate, 
spread  over  a  hemisphere  which  he  can 
not  enlighten  under  the  slightest  eclipse. 
Nor,  though  this  globe  should  revolve 
round  him  for  tens  of  hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  years,  will  he  see  such  another 
incipient  colonization  upon  any  part  of 
this  attendant  upon  his  mighty  orb. 
What  else  he  may  see  in  those  other 
planets  which  revolve  around  him  we 
cannot  tell,  at  least  until  we  have  tried 
the  fifty-foot  telescope  which  Lord  llosse 
is  preparing  for  that  purpose. 

There  is  not,  Gentlemen,  and  we  may 
as  well  admit  it,  in  any  history  of  the 


THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 


501 


past,  another  epoch  from  which  so  many 
great  events  have  taken  a  turn ;  events 
which,  while  important  to  us,  are  equally 
important  to  the  country  from  whence 
we  came.  The  settlement  of  Plymouth 
—  concurring,  I  always  wish  to  be  un 
derstood,  with  that  of  Virginia  —  was  the 
settlement  of  New  England  by  colonies 
of  Old  England.  Now,  Gentlemen,  take 
these  two  ideas  and  run  out  the  thoughts 
suggested  by  both.  What  has  been,  and 
what  is  to  be,  Old  England  ?  What  has 
been,  what  is,  and  what  may  be,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  New  England,  with 
her  neighbors  and  associates  ?  I  would 
not  dwell,  Gentlemen,  with  any  particu 
lar  emphasis  upon  the  sentiment,  which 
I  nevertheless  entertain,  with  respect  to 
the  great  diversity  in  the  races  of  men. 
I  do  not  know  how  far  in  that  respect  I 
might  not  encroach  on  those  mysteries 
of  Providence  which,  while  I  adore,  I 
may  not  comprehend;  but  it  does  seem 
to  me  to  be  very  remarkable,  that  we 
may  go  back  to  the  time  when  New 
England,  or  those  who  founded  it,  were 
subtracted  from  Old  England  ;  and  both 
Old  England  and  New  England  went 
on,  nevertheless,  in  their  mighty  career 
of  progress  and  power. 

Let  me  begin  with  New  England  for  a 
moment.  What  has  resulted,  embrac 
ing,  as  I  say,  the  nearly  contempora 
neous  settlement  of  Virginia, — what 
has  resulted  from  the  planting  upon  this 
continent  of  two  or  three  slender  colo 
nies  from  the  mother  country  ?  Gentle 
men,  the  great  epitaph  commemorative 
of  the  character  and  the  worth,  the 
discoveries  and  glory,  of  Columbus,  was, 
that  he  had  given  a  new  world  to  the  crowns 
of  Castile  and  Aragon.  Gentlemen,  this 
is  a  great  mistake.  It  does  not  come  up 
at  all  to  the.  great  merits  of  Columbus. 
He  gave  the  territory  of  the  southern 
hemisphere  to  the  crowns  of  Castile  and 
Aragon ;  but  as  a  place  for  the  plantation 
of  colonies,  as  a  place  for  the  habitation 
of  men,  as  a  place  to  which  laws  and  relig 
ion,  and  manners  and  science,  were  to  be 
transferred,  as  a  place  in  wrhich  the  crea 
tures  of  God  should  multiply  and  fill  the 
earth,  under  friendly  skies  and  with  relig 
ious  hearts,  he  gave  it  to  the  whole  world, 


he  gave  it  to  universal  man  !  From  this 
seminal  principle,  and  from  a  handful,  a 
hundred  saints,  blessed  of  God  and  ever 
honored  of  men,  landed  on  the  shores  of 
Plymouth  and  elsewhere  along  the  coast, 
united,  as  I  have  said  already  more  than 
once,  in  the  process  of  time,  with  the  set 
tlement  at  Jamestown,  has  sprung  this 
great  people  of  which  we  are  a  portion. 

I  do  not  reckon  myself  among  quite 
the  oldest  of  the  land,  and  yet  it  so 
happens  that  very  recently  I  recurred  to 
an  exulting  speech  or  oration  of  my  own, 
in  which  I  spoke  of  my  country  as  con 
sisting  of  nine  millions  of  people.  I 
could  hardly  persuade  myself  that  within 
the  short  time  which  had  elapsed  since 
that  epoch  our  population  had  doubled ; 
and  that  at  the  present  moment  there 
does  exist  most  unquestionably  as  great 
a  probability  of  its  continued  progress, 
in  the  same  ratio,  as  has  ever  existed 
in  any  previous  time.  I  do  not  know 
whose  imagination  is  fertile  enough,  I 
do  not  know  whose  conjectures,  I  may 
almost  say,  are  wild  enough  to  tell  what 
may  be  the  progress  of  wealth  and  popu 
lation  in  the  United  States  in  half  a 
century  to  come.  All  we  know  is,  here 
is  a  people  of  from  seventeen  to  twenty 
millions,  intelligent,  educated,  freehold 
ers,  freemen,  republicans,  possessed  of 
all  the  means  of  modern  improvement, 
modern  science,  arts,  literature,  with  the 
world  before  them !  There  is  nothing  to 
check  them  till  they  touch  the  shores  of 
the  Pacific,  and  then,  they  are  so  much 
accustomed  to  wrater,  that  that 's  a  facil 
ity,  and  no  obstruction ! 

So  much,  Gentlemen,  for  this  branch 
of  the  English  race ;  but  what  has  hap 
pened,  meanwhile,  to  England  herself 
since  the  period  of  the  departure  of  the 
Puritans  from  the  coast  of  Lincolnshire, 
from  the  English  Boston  ?  Gentlemen, 
in  speaking  of  the  progress  of  English 
power,  of  English  dominion  and  author 
ity,  from  that  period  to  the  present,  I 
shall  be  understood,  of  course,  as  neither 
entering  into  any  defence  or  any  accusa 
tion  of  the  policy  which  has  conducted 
her  to  her  present  state.  As  to  the  jus 
tice  of  her  wars,  the  necessity  of  her 
conquests,  the  propriety  of  those  acts  by 


502 


THE  LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 


which  she  has  taken  possession  of  so 
great  a  portion  of  the  globe,  it  is  not  the 
business  of  the  present  occasion  to  in 
quire.  Neque  tcneo,  neque  refello.  But 
I  speak  of  them,  or  intend  to  speak  of 
them,  as  facts  of  the  most  extraordinary 
character,  unequalled  in  the  history  of 
any  nation  on  the  globe,  and  the  conse 
quences  of  which  may  and  must  reach 
through  a  thousand  generations.  The 
Puritans  left  England  in  the  reign  of 
James  the  First.  England  herself  had 
then  become  somewhat  settled  and  es 
tablished  in  the  Protestant  faith,  and  in 
the  quiet  enjoyment  of  property,  by  the 
previous  energetic,  long,  and  prosperous 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  Her  successor  was 
James  the  Sixth  of  Scotland,  now 
become  James  the  First  of  England; 
and  here  was  a  union  of  the  crowns,  but 
not  of  the  kingdoms,  — a  very  important 
distinction.  Ireland  was  held  by  a 
military  power,  and  one  cannot  but  see 
that  at  that  day,  whatever  may  be  true 
or  untrue  in  more  recent  periods  of  her 
history,  Ireland  was  held  by  England  by 
the  two  great  potencies,  the  power  of  the 
sword  and  the  power  of  confiscation.  In 
other  respects,  England  was  nothing  like 
the  England  which  we  now  behold.  Her 
foreign  possessions  were  quite  inconsid 
erable.  She  had  some  hold  on  the  West 
India  Islands ;  she  had  Acadia,  or  Nova 
Scotia,  which  King  James  granted,  by 
wholesale,  for  the  endowment  of  the 
knights  whom  he  created  by  hundreds. 
And  what  has  been  her  progress  ?  Did 
she  then  possess  Gibraltar,  the  key  to  the 
Mediterranean  ?  Did  she  possess  a  port 
in  the  Mediterranean?  Was  Malta  hers  ? 
Were  the  Ionian  Islands  hers?  Was 
the  southern  extremity  of  Africa,  was 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  hers?  Were 
the  whole  of  her  vast  possessions  in 
India  hers  ?  Was  her  great  Australian 
empire  hers  ?  While  that  branch  of  her 
population  which  followed  the  western 
star,  and  under  its  guidance  committed 
itself  to  the  duty  of  settling,  fertilizing, 
and  peopling  an  unknown  wilderness  in 
the  West,  were  pursuing  their  destinies, 
other  causes,  providential  doubtless, 
were  leading  English  power  eastward 
and  southward,  in  consequence  and  by 


means  of  her  naval  prowess,  and  the 
extent  of  her  commerce,  until  in  our  day 
we  have  seen  that  within  the  Mediterra 
nean,  on  the  western  coast  and  at  the 
southern  extremity  of  Africa,  in  Arabia, 
in  hither  India  and  farther  India,  she 
has  a  population  ten  times  as  great  as 
that  of  the  British  Isles  two  centuries 
ago.  And  recently,  as  we  have  wit 
nessed,  —  I  will  not  say  with  how  much 
truth  and  justice,  policy  or  impolicy,  I 
do  not  speak  at  all  to  the  morality  of 
the  action,  I  only  speak  to  the  fact,  — 
she  has  found  admission  into  China,  and 
has  carried  the  Christian  religion  and 
the  Protestant  faith  to  the  doors  of  three 
hundred  millions  of  people. 

It  has  been  said  that  whosoever  would 
see  the  Eastern  world  before  it  turns 
into  a  Western  world  must  make  his 
visit  soon,  because  steamboats  and  om 
nibuses,  commerce,  and  all  the  arts  of 
Europe,  are  extending  themselves  from 
Egypt  to  Suez,  from  Suez  to  the  Indian 
seas,  and  from  the  Indian  seas  all  over  the 
explored  regions  of  the  still  farther  East. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  what 
practical  views  or  what  practical  results 
may  take  place  from  this  great  expan 
sion  of  the  power  of  the  two  branches  of 
Old  England.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say. 
I  only  can  see,  that  on  this  continent  all 
is  to  be  Anglo- American  from  Plymouth 
Rock  to  the  Pacific  seas,  from  the  north 
pole  to  California.  That  is  certain ;  and 
in  the  Eastern  world,  I  only  see  that  you 
can  hardly  place  a  finger  on  a  map  of 
the  world  and  be  an  inch  from  an  Eng 
lish  settlement. 

Gentlemen,  if  there  be  any  thing  in 
the  supremacy  of  races,  the  experiment 
now  in  progress  will  develop  it.  If 
there  be  any  truth  in  the  idea,  that  those 
who  issued  from  the  great  Caucasian 
fountain,  and  spread  over  Europe,  are 
to  react  on  India  and  on  Asia,  and  to 
act  on  the  whole  Western  world,  it  may 
not  be  for  us,  nor  our  children,  nor  our 
grandchildren,  to  see  it,  but  it  will  be 
for  our  descendants  of  some  generation 
to  see  the  extent  of  that  progress  and 
dominion  of  the  favored  races. 

For  myself,  I  believe  there  is  no  limit 
fit  to  be  assigned  to  it  by  the  human 


THE  LANDING  AT   PLYMOUTH. 


503 


mind,  because  I  find  at  work  every  where, 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  under 
various  forms  and  degrees  of  restriction 
on  the  one  hand,  and  under  various 
degrees  of  motive  and  stimulus  on  the 
other  hand,  in  these  branches  of  a  com 
mon  race,  the  great  principle  of  the  free 
dom  of  human  thought,  and  the  respecta 
bility  of  individual  character.  I  find 
everywhere  an  elevation  of  the  character 
of  man  as  man,  an  elevation  of  the  in 
dividual  as  a  component  part  of  society. 
I  find  everywhere  a  rebuke  of  the  idea, 
that  the  many  are  made  for  the  few,  or 
that  government  is  any  thing  but  an 
agency  for  mankind.  And  I  care  not 
beneath  what  zone,  frozen,  temperate, 
or  torrid;  I  care  not  of  what  complexion, 
white  or  brown ;  I  care  not  under  what 
circumstances  of  climate  or  cultivation,  — 
if  I  can  find  a  race  of  men  on  an  inhabi 
table  spot  of  earth  whose  general  senti 
ment  it  is,  and  whose  general  feeling  it 
is,  that  government  is  made  for  man, — 
man,  as  a  religious,  moral,  and  social 
being,  —  and  not  man  for  government, 
there  I  know  that  I  shall  find  prosperity 
and  happiness. 

Gentlemen,  I  forbear  from  these  re 
marks.  I  recur  with  pleasure  to  the 
sentiment  which  I  expressed  at  the  com 
mencement  of  my  observations.  I  re 
peat  the  gratification  which  I  feel  at 
having  been  referred  to  on  this  occasion 
by  a  distinguished  member  of  the  mer 
cantile  profession;  and  without  detain 
ing  you  further,  I  beg  to  offer  as  a  senti 
ment,  — 

u  The  mercantile  interest  of  the  United 
States,  always  and  everywhere  friendly 
to  a  united  and  free  government." 

Mr.  Webster  sat  down  amid  loud  and  re 
peated  applause  ;  and  immediately  after,  at 
the  request  of  the  President,  rose  and  said :  — 

Gentlemen,  I  have  the  permission  of 
the  President  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  circumstance  that  a  distinguished 
foreigner  is  at  the  table  to-night,  Mr. 
Aldham;  a  gentleman,  I  am  happy  to 
say,  of  my  own  hard-working  profes 
sion,  and  a  member  of  the  English  Par 
liament  from  the  great  city  of  Leeds. 
A  traveller  in  the  United  States,  in  the 


most  unostentatious  manner,  he  has 
done  us  the  honor,  at  the  request  of  the 
Society,  to  be  present  to-night.  I  rise, 
Gentlemen,  to  propose  his  health.  He 
is  of  that  Old  England  of  which  I  have 
been  speaking;  of  that  Old  England 
with  whom  we  had  some  fifty  years  ago 
rather  a  serious  family  quarrel,  —  ter 
minated  in  a  manner,  I  believe,  not 
particularly  disadvantageous  to  either 
of  us.  He  will  find  in  this,  his  first 
visit  to  our  country,  many  things  to 
remind  him  of  his  own  home,  and  the 
pursuits  in  which  he  is  engaged  in  that 
home.  If  he  will  go  into  our  courts  of 
law,  he  will  find  those  who  practise 
there  referring  to  the  same  books  of 
authority,  acknowledging  the  same 
principles,  discussing  the  same  subjects 
which  he  left  under  discussion  in  West 
minster  Hall.  If  he  go  into  our  public 
assemblies,  he  will  find  the  same  rules 
of  procedure —  possibly  not  always  quite 
as  regularly  observed  —  as  he  left  be 
hind  him  in  that  house  of  Parliament 
of  which  he  is  a  member.  At  any  rate, 
he  will  find  us  a  branch  of  that  great 
family  to  which  he  himself  belongs,  and 
I  doubt  not  that,  in  his  sojourn  among 
us,  in  the  acquaintances  he  may  form, 
the  notions  he  may  naturally  imbibe,  he 
will  go  home  to  his  own  country  some 
what  better  satisfied  with  what  he  has 
seen  and  learned  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  and  somewhat  more  convinced 
of  the  great  importance  to  both  coun 
tries  of  preserving  the  peace  that  at 
present  subsists  between  them.  I  pro 
pose  to  you,  Gentlemen,  the  health  of 
Mr.  Aldham. 

Mr.  Aldham  rose  and  said :  —  "  Mr.  Presi 
dent  and  Gentlemen  of  the  New  England 
Society,  I  little  expected  to  be  called  on  to 
take  a  part  in  the  proceedings  of  this  even 
ing  ;  but  I  am  very  happy  in  being  afforded 
an  opportunity  of  expressing  my  grateful 
acknowledgments  for  the  very  cordial  hospi 
tality  which  you  have  extended  to  me,  and 
the  very  agreeable  intellectual  treat  with 
which  I  have  been  favored  this  evening. 
It  was  with  no  little  astonishment  that  I 
listened  to  the  terms  in  which  I  was  intro 
duced  to  you  by  a  gentleman  whom  I  so 
much  honor  (Mr.  Webster).  The  kind  and 
friendly  terms  in  which  he  referred  to  me 


504 


THE   LANDING  AT  PLYMOUTH. 


were,  indeed,  quite  unmerited  by  their  hum 
ble  object,  and  nothing,  indeed,  could  have 
been  more  inappropriate.  It  is  impossible 
for  any  stranger  to  witness  such  a  scene  as 
this  without,  the  greatest  interest.  It  is  the 
celebration  of  an  event  which  already 
stands  recorded  as  one  of  the  most  inter 
esting  and  momentous  occurrences  which 
ever  took  place  in  the  annals  of  our  race. 
And  an  Englishman  especially  cannot  but 
experience  the  deepest  emotion  as  he  re 
gards  such  a  scene.  Every  thing  which  he 
sees,  every  emblem  employed  in  this  cele 
bration,  many  of  the  topics  introduced,  re 
mind  him  most  impressively  of  that  com 


munity  of  ancestry  which  exists  between 
his  own  countrymen  and  that  great  race 
which  peoples  this  continent,  and  which,  in 
enterprise,  ingenuity,  and  commercial  ac 
tivity, —  in  all  the  elements  indeed  of  a 
great  and  prosperous  nation,  —  is  certainly 
not  exceeded,  perhaps  not  equalled,  by  any 
other  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Gen 
tlemen,  I  again  thank  you  for  the  honor 
you  have  done  me,  and  conclude  by  ex 
pressing  the- hope  that  the  event  may  con 
tinue  to  be  celebrated  in  the  manner  which 
its  importance  and  interest  merit." 

Mr.  Aldham  sat   down  amid  great  ap 
plause. 


THE   CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY  AND   THE   RELIGIOUS 
INSTRUCTION   OF   THE   YOUNG. 


A   SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  AT   WASHINGTON,  ON   THE 
20TH  OF  FEBRUARY,   1844,   IN  THE  GIRARD  WILL  CASE. 


[THE  heirs  at  law  of  the  late  Stephen 
Girard,  of  Philadelphia,  instituted  a  suit  in 
October,  1836,  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  sitting 
as  a  court  of  equity,  to  try  the  question  of 
the  validity  of  his  will.  In  April,  1841,  the 
cause  came  on  for  hearing  in  the  Circuit 
Court,  and  was  decided  in  favor  of  the 
will.  The  case  was  carried  by  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
at  Washington,  where  it  was  argued  by 
General  Jones  and  Mr.  Webster  for  the  com 
plainants  and  appellants,  and  by  Messrs. 
Binney  and  Sergeant  for  the  validity  of 
the  will. 

The  following  speech  was  made  by  Mr. 
Webster  in  the  course  of  the  trial  at  Wash 
ington.  A  deep  impression  was  produced 
upon  the  public  mind  by  those  portions  of 
it  which  enforced  the  intimate  connection 
of  the  Christian  ministry  with  the  business 
of  instruction,  and  the  necessity  of  found 
ing  education  on  a  religious  basis. 

This  impression  resulted  in  the  follow 
ing  correspondence :  — 

44  Washington,  February  13,  1844. 
"SiR, — Enclosed  is  a  copy  of  certain  pro 
ceedings  of  a  meeting  held  in  reference  to  your 
argument  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  case 
arising  out  of  the  late  Mr.  Girard's  will.  In 
communicating  to  you  the  request  contained  in 
the  second  resolution,  we  take  leave  to  express 
our  earnest  hope  that  you  may  find  it  conven 
ient  to  comply  with  that  request. 

"  We  are,  Sir,  with  high  consideration, 
yours,  very  respectfully, 

P.  R.  FENDALL, 

HORACE  STRINGFELLOW, 

JOSHUA  N.  DANFOKTH, 

R.  R.  GUIUEY, 

WILLIAM  RUGGLES, 

JOEL  S.  BACON, 

THOMAS  SEWALL, 

WILLIAM  B.  EDWARDS, 
"HoN.  DANIEL  WEBSTER." 


Committee. 


"  At  a  meeting  of  a  number  of  citizens,  be 
longing  to  different  religious  denominations,  of 
Washington  and  its  vicinity,  convened  to  con 
sider  the  expediency  of  procuring  the  publica 
tion  of  so  much  of  Mr.  Webster's  argument 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  case  of  Francois  F.  Vidal  et  al.,  Appel 
lants,  v.  The  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Citizens 
of  Philadelphia,  and  Stephen  Girard's  Execu 
tors,  as  relates  to  that  part  of  Mr.  Girard's  will 
which  excludes  ministers  of  religion  from  any 
station  or  duty  in  the  college  directed  by  the 
testator  to  be  founded,  and  denies  to  them  the 
right  of  visiting  said  college ;  the  object  of  the 
meeting  having  been  stated  by  Professor  Sewall 
in  a  few  appropriate  remarks,  the  Hon.  Henrv 
L.  Ellsworth  was  elected  chairman,  and  the 
Rev.  Isaac  S.  Tinsley  secretary. 

"  Whereupon  it  was,  on  motion,  unanimously 
resolved, 

"  1st.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  meeting, 
the  powerful  and  eloquent  argument  of  Mr. 
Webster,  on  the  before-mentioned  clause  of  Mr. 
Girard's  will,  demonstrates  the  vital  importance 
of  Christianity  to  the  success  of  our  free  institu 
tions,  and  its  necessity  as  the  basis  of  all  useful 
moral  education;  and  that  the  general  diffusion 
of  that  argument  among  the  people  of  the  United 
States  is  a  matter  of  deep  public  interest. 

"2d.  That  a  committee  of  eight  persons,  of 
the  several  Christian  denominations  represented 
in  this  meeting,  be  appointed  to  wait  on  Mr. 
Webster,  and,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of 
this  meeting,  to  request  him  to  prepare  for  the 
press  the  portion  referred  to  of  his  argument  in 
the  Girard  case;  and,  should  he  consent  to  do 
so,  to  cause  it  to  be  speedily  published  and  ex 
tensively  disseminated. 

"The  following  gentlemen  were  appointed 
the  committee  under  the  second  resolution : 
Philip  R.  Fendall,  Esq.,  Rev.  Horace  String- 
fellow,  Rev.  Joshua  N.  Danforth,  Rev.  R.  Ran 
dolph  Gurley,  Professor  William  Ruggles,  Rev. 
President  J*.  S.  Bacon,  Doctor  Thomas  Sewall, 
Rev.  William  B.  Edwards. 

"  The  meeting  then  adjourned. 

"  H.  L.  ELLSWORTH,  Chairman. 

"ISAAC  S.  TINSLEY,  Secretary." 


506 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


"  Washington,  February  13,  1844. 
"GKNTLEMEN, — I  have  the  honor  to  ac 
knowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communication. 
Gentlemen  connected  with  the  public  press 
have,  I  believe,  reported  my  speech  in  the  case 
arising  under  Mr.  Girard's  will.  I  will  look 
over  the  report  of  that  part  of  it  to  which  you 
refer,  so  far  as  to  see  that  it  is  free  from  mate 
rial  errors,  but  I  have  not  leisure  so  to  revise  it 
as  to  give  it  the  form  of  a  careful  or  regular 
composition. 

"I  am,  Gentlemen,  with  very  true  regard, 
your  obedient  servant, 

"  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
"To  Messrs.  P.  R.  FENDALL, 

HORACE  STRINGFELLOW, 

JOSHUA  N.  DAN  FORTH, 

R.  R.  GURLEY, 

WILLIAM  RUGGLES, 

JOEL  S.  BACON, 

THOMAS  SEVVALL, 

WILLIAM  B.  EDWARDS." 

The  following  mottoes  were  prefixed  to 
this  speech,  in  the  original  pamphlet  edi 
tion. 

"  Socrates.  If,  then,  you  wish  public  meas 
ures  to  be  right  and  noble,  virtue  must  be  given 
by  you  to  the  citizens. 

"  Alcibiades.    How  could  any  one  deny  that  ? 

"  Soorates.  Virtue,  therefore,  is  that  which 
is  to  be  first  possessed,  both  by  you  and  by 
every  other  person  who  would  have  direction 
and  care,  not  only  for  himself  and  things  dear 
to  himself,  but  for  the  state  and  things  dear  to 
the  state. 

"  Alcibiade*.    You  speak  truly. 

"Socrates.  To  act  justly  and  wisely  (both 
you  and  the  state),  YOU  MUST  ACT  ACCORDING 

TO  THE  WILL  OF  GOD. 

"  Ale/Modes.     It  is  so."  —  Plato. 

"  Sic  igitur  hoc  a  principio  persuasum  civibus, 
dominos  esse  omnium  rerum  ac  moderatores, 
deos."  —  Cicero  de  Le gibus. 

"  We  shall  never  be  such  fools  as  to  call  in 
an  enemy  to  the  substance  of  any  system,  to 
supply  its  defects,  or  to  perfect  its  construction." 

"  If  our  religious  tenets  should  ever  want  a 
further  elucidation,  we  shall  not  call  on  atheism 
to  explain  them  We  shall  not  light  up  our 
temple  from  that  unhallowed  fire." 

"We  know, and  it  is  our  pride  to  know,  that 
man  is,  bv  his  constitution,  a  religious  animal." 
—  Burke'. 

MAY  IT  PLEASE  YOUR  HONORS  :  — 

IT  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  narrate, 
in  detail,  the  numerous  provisions  of 
Mr.  Girard's  will.  This  has  already 
been  repeatedly  done  by  other  counsel, 
and  I  shall  content  myself  with  stating 
and  considering  those  parts  only  which 
are  immediately  involved  in  the  decision 
of  this  cause. 

The  will  is  drawn  with  apparent  care 
and  method,  and  is  regularly  divided 
into  clauses.  The  first  nineteen  clauses 
contain  various  devises  and  legacies  to 


relatives,  to  other  private  individuals, 
and  to  public  bodies.  By  the  twentieth 
clause  the  whole  residue  of  his  estate, 
real  and  personal,  is  devised  and  be 
queathed  to  the  "  mayor,  aldermen, 
and  citizens  of  Philadelphia,"  in  trust 
for  the  several  uses  to  be  after  men 
tioned  and  declared. 

The  twenty-first  clause  contains  the 
devise  or  bequest  to  the  college,  in  these 
words :  — 

"And  so  far  as  regards  the  residue  of 
my  personal  estate  in  trust,  as  to  two  mil 
lions  of  dollars,  part  thereof,  to  apply  and 
expend  so  much  of  that  sum  as  may  be 
necessary  in  erecting,  as  soon  as  practica 
bly  may  be,  in  the  centre  of  my  square  of 
ground,  between  High  and  Chestnut  Streets, 
and  Eleventh  and  Twelfth  Streets,  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia,  (which  square  of 
ground  I  hereby  devote  for  the  purpose 
hereinafter  stated,  and  for  no  other,  for 
ever,)  a  permanent  college,  with  suitable 
out-buildings  sufficiently  spacious  for  the 
residence  and  accommodation  of  at  least 
three  hundred  scholars,  and  the  requisite 
teachers  and  other  persons  necessary  in 
such  an  institution  as  I  direct  to  be  estab 
lished,  and  in  supplying  the  said  college  and 
out-buildings  with  decent  and  suitable  fur 
niture,  as  well  as  books,  and  all  things 
needful  to  carry  into  effect  my  general 
design." 

The  testator  then  proceeds  to  direct 
that  the  college  shall  be  constructed  of 
the  most  durable  materials,  avoiding 
needless  ornament,  and  attending  chiefly 
to  the  strength,  convenience,  and  neat 
ness  of  the  whole;  and  gives  directions, 
very  much  in  detail,  respecting  the  form 
of  the  building,  and  the  size  and  fashion 
of  the  rooms.  The  whole  square,  he 
directs,  shall  be  enclosed  with  a  solid 
wall,  at  least  fourteen  inches  thick  and 
ten  feet  high,  capped  with  marble,  and 
guarded  with  irons  on  the  top,  so  as  to 
prevent  persons  from  getting  over;  and 
there  are  to  be  two  places  of  entrance 
into  the  square,  with  two  gates  at  each, 
one  opening  inward  and  the  other  out 
ward,  those  opening  inward  to  be  of 
iron,  and  those  opening  outward  to  be 
of  wood- work,  lined  with  sheet-iron. 

The  testator  then  proceeds  to  give 
his  directions  respecting  the  institution, 


AND   THE  RELIGIOUS  INSTRUCTION  OF  THE  YOUNG. 


507 


laying  down  his  plan  and  objects  in 
several  articles.  The  third  article  is  in 
these  words :  — 

"  3.  As  many  poor  white  male  orphans, 
between  the  ages  of  six  and  ten  years,  as 
the  said  income  shall  be  adequate  to  main 
tain,  shall  be  introduced  into  the  college  as 
soon  as  possible ;  and  from  time  to  time, 
as  there  may  be  vacancies,  or  as  increased 
ability  from  income  may  warrant,  others 
shall  be  introduced." 

The  fifth  direction  is  as  follows :  — 

"  5.  No  orphan  should  be  admitted  until 
the  guardians,  or  directors  of  the  poor,  or 
a  proper  guardian  or  other  competent  au 
thority,  shall  have  given,  by  indenture,  re- 
linquishment,  or  otherwise,  adequate  power 
to  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and  citizens  of 
Philadelphia,  or  to  directors  or  others  by 
them  appointed,  to  enforce,  in  relation  to 
each  orphan,  every  proper  restraint,  and  to 
prevent  relations  or  others  from  interfer 
ing  with  or  withdrawing  such  orphan  from 
the  institution." 

By  the  sixth  article,  or  direction, 
preference  is  to  be  given,  first,  to  or 
phans  born  in  Philadelphia;  second,  to 
those  born  in  other  parts  of  Pennsyl 
vania;  third,  to  those  born  in  the  city 
of  New  York;  and,  lastly,  to  those  born 
in  the  city  of  New  Orleans. 

By  the  seventh  article,  it  is  declared, 
that  the  orphans  shall  be  lodged,  fed, 
and  clothed  in  the  college;  that  they 
shall  be  instructed  in  the  various  branch 
es  of  a  sound  education,  comprehend 
ing  reading,  writing,  grammar,  arith 
metic,  geography,  navigation,  surveying, 
practical  mathematics,  astronomy,  nat 
ural,  chemical,  and  experimental  phi 
losophy,  and  the  French  and  Spanish 
languages,  and  such  other  learning  and 
science  as  the  capacities  of  the  scholars 
may  merit  or  want.  The  Greek  and 
Latin  languages  are  not  forbidden,  but 
are  not  recommended. 

By  the  ninth  article  it  is  declared, 
that  the  boys  shall  remain  in  the  college 
till  they  arrive  at  between  fourteen  and 
eighteen  years  of  age,  when  they  shall 
be  bound  out  by  the  city  government  to 
suitable  occupations,  such  as  agricul 
ture,  navigation,  and  the  mechanical 
trades. 


The  testator  proceeds  to  say,  that 
he  necessarily  leaves  many  details  to 
the  city  government;  and  then  adds, 
"  There  are,  however,  some  restrictions 
which  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  pre 
scribe,  and  to  be,  amongst  others,  con 
ditions  on  which  my  bequest  for  said 
college  is  made,  and  to  be  enjoyed." 

The  second  of  these  restrictions  is  in 
the  following  words :  — 

"  Secondly.  I  enjoin  and  require  that  no 
ecclesiastic,  missionary,  or  minister,  of  any  sect 
whatever,  shall  ever  hold  or  exercise  any  station 
or  duty  whatever  in  the  said  college ;  nor  shall 
any  such  person  ever  be  admitted  for  any  pur 
pose,  or  as  a  visitor,  within  the  premises  ap 
propriated  to  the  purposes  of  the  said  college. 

"  In  making  this  restriction,  I  do  not 
mean  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  any  sect 
or  person  whatsoever ;  but,  as  there  is  such 
a  diversity  of  opinion  amongst  them,  I  de 
sire  to  keep  the  tender  minds  of  the  or 
phans  who  are  to  derive  advantage  from 
this  bequest  free  from  the  excitement 
which  clashing  doctrines  and  sectarian  con 
troversy  are  so  apt  to  produce  ;  my  desire 
is,  that  all  the  instructors  and  teachers  in 
the  college  shall  take  pains  to  instil  into 
the  minds  of  the  scholars  the  purest  princi 
ples  of  morality,  so  that  on  their  entrance 
into  active  life  they  may,  from  inclination 
and  habit,  evince  benevolence  towards  their 
fellow-creatures,  and  a  love  of  truth,  sobriety, 
and  industry,  adopting  at  the  same  time 
such  religious  tenets  as  their  matured  reason 
may  enable  them  to  prefer." 

The  testator  having,  after  the  date  of 
his  will,  bought  a  house  in  Penn  Town 
ship,  with  forty -five  acres  of  land,  he 
made  a  codicil,  by  which  he  directed 
the  college  to  be  built  on  this  estate,  in 
stead  of  the  square  mentioned  in  the 
will,  and  the  whole  establishment  to  be 
made  thereon,  just  as  if  he  had  in  his 
will  devoted  the  estate  to  that  purpose. 
The  city  government  has  accordingly 
been  advised  that  the  whole  forty-five 
acres  must  be  enclosed  with  the  same 
high  wall  as  was  provided  in  the  will 
for  the  square  in  the  city. 

I  have  now  stated,  I  believe,  all  the 
provisions  of  the  will  which  are  mate 
rial  to  the  discussion  of  that  part  of  the 
case  which  respects  the  character  of 
the  institution. 


508 


THE   CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY 


The  first  question  is,  whether  this  de 
vise  can  be  sustained,  otherwise  than  as 
a  charity,  and  by  that  special  aid  and 
assistance  by  which  courts  of  equity 
support  gifts  to  charitable  uses. 

If  the  devise  be  a  good  limitation  at 
law,  if  it  require  no  exercise  of  the 
favor  which  is  bestowed  on  privileged 
testaments,  then  there  is  already  an  end 
to  the  question.  But  I  take  it  that  this 
point  is  conceded.  The  devise  is  void, 
according  to  the  general  rules  of  law, 
on  account  of  the  uncertainty  in  the 
description  of  those  who  are  intended  to 
receive  its  benefits. 

"  Poor  white  male  orphan  children" 
is  so  loose  a  description,  that  no  one  can 
bring  himself  within  the  terms  of  the 
bequest,  so  as  to  say  that  it  was  made 
in  his  favor.  No  individual  can  ac 
quire  any  right  or  interest;  nobody, 
therefore,  can  come  forward  as  a  party, 
in  a  court  of  law,  to  claim  participation 
in  the  gift.  The  bequest  must  stand,  if 
it  stand  at  all,  on  the  peculiar  rules 
which  equitable  jurisprudence  applies  to 
charities.  This  is  clear. 

I  proceed,  therefore,  to  submit,  and 
most  conscientiously  to  argue,  a  ques 
tion,  certainly  one  of  the  highest  which 
this  court  has  ever  been  called  upon  to 
consider,  and  one  of  the  highest,  and 
most  important,  in  my  opinion,  ever 
likely  to  come  before  it.  That  question 
is,  whether,  in  the  eye  of  equitable  juris 
prudence,  this  dense  be  a  charity  at  all. 
I  deny  that  it  is  so.  I  maintain,  that 
neither  by  judicial  decisions  nor  by  cor 
rect  reasoning  on  general  principles  can 
this  devise  or  bequest  be  regarded  as  a 
charity.  This  part  of  the  argument  is 
not  aifected  by  the  particular  judicial 
system  of  Pennsylvania,  or  the  question 
of  the  power  of  her  courts  to  uphold 
and  administer  charitable  gifts.  The 
question  which  I  now  propose  respects 
the  inherent,  essential,  and  manifest 
character  of  the  devise  itself.  In  this 
respect,  I  wish  to  express  myself  clearly, 
and  to  be  correctly  and  distinctly  under 
stood.  What  I  have  said  I  shall  stand 
by,  and  endeavor  to  maintain ;  namely, 
that  in  the  view  of  a  court  of  equity 
this  devise  is  no  charity  at  all.  It  is  no 


charity,  because  the  plan  of  education 
proposed  by  Mr.  Girard  is  derogatory  to 
the  Christian  religion ;  tends  to  weaken 
men's  reverence  for  that  religion,  and 
their  conviction  of  its  authority  and  im 
portance;  and  therefore,  in  its  general 
character,  tends  to  mischievous,  and  not 
to  useful  ends. 

The  proposed  school  is  to  be  founded 
on  plain  and  clear  principles,  and  for 
plain  and  clear  objects,  of  infidelity. 
This  cannot  well  be  doubted;  and  a 
gift,  or  devise,  for  such  objects,  is  not  a 
charity,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the 
well-known  favor  with  which  charities 
are  received  and  upheld  by  the  courts  of 
Christian  countries. 

In  the  next  place,  the  object  of  this 
bequest  is  against  the  public  policy  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  in  which 
State  Christianity  is  declared  to  be  the 
law  of  the  land.  For  that  reason, 
therefore,  as  well  as  the  other,  the  de 
vise  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  take 
effect. 

These  are  the  two  propositions  which 
it  is  my  purpose  to  maintain,  on  this 
part  of  the  case. 

This  scheme  of  instruction  begins 
by  attempting  to  attach  reproach  and 
odium  to  the  whole  clergy  of  the  coun 
try.  It  places  a  brand,  a  stigma,  on 
every  individual  member  of  the  profes 
sion,  without  an  exception.  No  min 
ister  of  the  Gospel,  of  any  denomina 
tion,  is  to  be  allowed  to  come  within 
the  grounds  belonging  to  this  school,  on 
any  occasion,  or  for  any  purpose  what 
ever.  They  are  all  rigorously  excluded, 
as  if  their  mere  presence  might  cause 
pestilence.  We  have  heard  it  said  that 
Mr.  Girard,  by  this  will,  distributed  his 
charity  without  distinction  of  sect  or 
party.  However  that  may  be,  Sir,  he 
certainly  has  dealt  out  opprobrium  to 
the  whole  profession  of  the  clergy,  with 
out  regard  to  sect  or  party. 

By  this  will,  no  minister  of  the  Gos 
pel  of  any  sect  or  denomination  what 
ever  can  be  authorized  or  allowed  to 
hold  any  office  within  the  college;  and 
not  only  that,  but  no  minister  or  clergy 
man  of  any  sect  can,  for  any  purpose 
whatever,  enter  within  the  walls  that 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF   THE   YOUNG. 


509 


are  to  surround  this  college.  If  a 
clergyman  has  a  sick  nephew,  or  a  sick 
grandson,  he  cannot,  upon  any  pretext, 
be  allowed  to  visit  him  within  the  walls 
of  the  college.  The  provision  of  the 
will  is  express  and  decisive.  Still  less 
may  a  clergyman  enter  to  offer  consola 
tion  to  the  sick,  or  to  unite  in  prayer 
with  the  dying. 

Now,  I  will  not  arraign  Mr.  Girard 
or  his  motives  for  this.  I  will  not  in 
quire  into  Mr.  Girard's  opinions  upon 
religion.  But  I  feel  bound  to  say,  the 
occasion  demands  that  I  should  say,  that 
this  is  the  most  opprobrious,  the  most 
insulting  and  unmerited  stigma,  that 
ever  was  cast,  or  attempted  to  be  cast, 
upon  the  preachers  of  Christianity, 
from  north  to  south,  from  east  to  west, 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land,  in  the  history  of  the  country. 
When  have  they  deserved  it?  Where 
have  they  deserved  it?  How  have  they 
deserved  it?  They  are  not  to  be  allowed 
even  the  ordinary  rights  of  hospitality; 
not  even  to  be  permitted  to  put  their 
foot  over  the  threshold  of  this  college ! 

Sir,  I  take  it  upon  myself  to  say,  that 
in  no  country  in  the  world,  upon  either 
continent,  can  there  be  found  a  body  of 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  who  perform  so 
much   service   to  man,   in  such    a   full 
spirit  of  self-denial,  under  so  little  en 
couragement  from   government  of  any 
kind,  and  under  circumstances  almost 
always   much  straitened  and  often  dis 
tressed,  as  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  United  States,  of  all  denomina 
tions.     They  form  no  part  of  any  estab 
lished  order  of  religion ;  they  constitute 
no   hierarchy;    they  enjoy  no   peculiar 
privileges.     In  some  of  the  States  they 
are  even  shut  out  from  all  participation 
in  the  political  rights  and  privileges  en 
joyed   by  their   fellow-citizens.      They 
enjoy  no  tithes,  no  public  provision  of 
|  any  kind.     Except  here   and   there,  in 
;  large  cities,  where  a  wealthy  individual 
I  occasionally  makes  a  donation  for  the 
;  support  of   public  worship,   what  have 
.  they  to  depend   upon?     They  have   to 
•  depend  entirely  on  the  voluntary  con 
tributions  of  those  who  hear  them. 

And   this    body    of    clergymen    has 


shown,  to  the  honor  of  their  own  coun 
try  and  to  the  astonishment  of  the  hie 
rarchies  of  the  Old  World,  that  it  is 
practicable  in  free  governments  to  raise 
and  sustain  by  voluntary  contributions 
alone  a  body  of  clergymen,  which,  for 
devotedness  to  their  sacred  calling,  for 
purity  of  life  and  character,  for  learn 
ing,  intelligence,  piety,  and  that  wis 
dom  which  cometh  from  above,  is  in 
ferior  to  none,  and  superior  to  most 
others. 

I  hope  that  our  learned  men  have 
done  something  for  the  honor  of  our  lit- 
e/ature  abroad.  I  hope  that  the  courts 
of  justice  and  members  of  the  bar  of 
this  country  have  done  something  to 
elevate  the  character  of  the  profession 
of  the  law.  I  hope  that  the  discussions 
above  (in  Congress)  have  done  some 
thing  to  meliorate  the  condition  of 
the  human  race,  to  secure  and  extend 
the  great  charter  of  human  rights,  and 
to  strengthen  and  advance  the  great 
princij<les  of  human  liberty.  But  I 
contend  that  no  literary  efforts,  no  ad 
judications,  no  constitutional  discus 
sions,  nothing  that  has  been  done  or 
said  in  favor  of  the  great  interests  of 
universal  man,  has  done  this  country 
more  credit,  at  home  and  abroad,  than 
the  establishment  of  our  body  of  clergy 
men,  their  support  by  voluntary  contri 
butions,  and  the  general  excellence  of 
their  character  for  piety  and  learning. 

The  great  truth  has  thus  been  pro 
claimed  and  proved,  a  truth  which  I  be 
lieve  will  in  time  to  come  shake  all  the 
hierarchies  of  Europe,  that  the  volun 
tary  support  of  such  a  ministry,  under 
free  institutions,  is  a  practicable  idea. 

And  yet  every  one  of  these,  the  Chris 
tian  ministers  of  the  United  States,  is 
by  this  devise  denied  the  privileges 
which  are  at  the  same  time  open  to  the 
vilest  of  our  race ;  every  one  is  shut  out 
from  this,  I  had  almost  said  sanctum, 
but  I  will  not  profane  that  word  by  such 
a  use  of  it. 

Did  a  man  ever  live  that  had  a  respect 
for  the  Christian  religion,  and  yet  had 
no  regard  for  any  one  of  its  ministers? 
Did  that  system  of  instruction  ever 
exist,  which  denounced  the  whole  body 


510 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


of  Christian  teachers,  and  yet  called 
itself  a  system  of  Christianity? 

The  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side 
see  the  weak  points  of  this  case.  They 
are  not  blind.  They  have,  with  the  aid 
of  their  great  learning,  industry,  and 
research,  gone  back  to  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine,  they  have  searched  the  history 
of  the  Roman  emperors,  the  Dark  Ages, 
and  the  intervening  period,  down  to  the 
settlement  of  these  colonies ;  they  have 
explored  every  nook  and  corner  of  relig 
ious  and  Christian  history,  to  find  out 
the  various  meanings  and  uses  of  Chris 
tian  charity  ;  and  yet,  with  all  their 
skill  and  all  their  research,  they  have 
not  been  able  to  discover  any  thing  which 
has  ever  been  regarded  as  a  Christian 
charity,  that  sets  such  an  opprobrium 
upon  the  forehead  of  all  its  ministers. 
If,  with  all  their  endeavors,  they  can 
find  any  one  thing  which  has  been  so 
regarded,  they  may  have  their  college,  and 
make  the  most  of  it.  But  the  thing 
does  not  exist ;  it  never  had  a  being ;  his 
tory  does  not  record  it,  common  sense 
revolts  at  it.  It  certainly  is  not  neces 
sary  for  me  to  make  an  ecclesiastical 
argument  in  favor  of  this  proposition. 
The  thing  is  so  plain,  that  it  must  in 
stantly  commend  itself  to  your  honors. 

It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Girard  was 
charitable.  I  am  not  now  going  to  con 
trovert  this.  I  hope  he  was.  I  hope  he 
has  found  his  reward.  It  has  also  been 
asked,  "  Cannot  Mr.  Girard  be  allowed 
to  have  his  own  will,  to  devise  his  prop 
erty  according  to  his  own  desire?  "  Cer 
tainly  he  can,  in  any  legal  devise,  and 
the  law  will  sustain  him  therein.  But 
it  is  not  for  him  to  overturn  the  law  of 
the  land.  The  law  cannot  be  altered  to 
please  Mr.  Girard.  lie  found  that  out, 
I  believe,  in  two  or  three  instances  in 
his  lifetime.  Nor  can  the  law  be  altered 
on  account  of  the  magnitude  and  mu 
nificence  of  the  bounty.  What  is  the 
value  of  that  bounty,  however  great  or 
munificent,  which  touches  the  very  foun 
dations  of  human  society,  which  touches 
the  very  foundations  of  Christian  char 
ity,  which  touches  the  very  foundations 
of  public  law,  and  the  Constitution,  and 
the  whole  welfare  of  the  state? 


And  now,  let  me  ask,  What  is,  in  con 
templation  of  law,  "  a  charity  "?  The 
word  kas  various  significations.  In  the 
larger  and  broader  sense,  it  means  the 
kindly  exercise  of  the  social  affections, 
all  the  good  feelings  which  man  enter 
tains  towards  man.  Charity  is  love. 
This  is  that  charity  of  which  St.  Paul 
speaks,  that  charity  which  covereth  the 
sins  of  men,  "that  suffereth  all  things, 
hopeth  all  things."  In  a  more  popular 
sense,  charity  is  alms-giving  or  active 
benevolence. 

But  the  question  for  your  honors  to 
decide  here  is,  What  is  a  charity,  or  a 
charitable  use,  in  contemplation  of  law? 
To  answer  this  inquiry,  we  are  generally 
referred  to  the  objects  enumerated  in  the 
43d  of  Elizabeth.  The  objects  enumer 
ated  in  that  statute,  and  others  analo 
gous  to  them,  are  charities  in  the  sense 
of  equitable  jurisprudence. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  a  school  of 
learning  is  a  charity.  It  is  one  of  those 
mentioned  in  the  statutes.  Such  a  school 
of  learning  as  was  contemplated  by  the 
statutes  of  Elizabeth  is  a  charity ;  and 
all  such  have  borne  that  name  and  char 
acter  to  this  day.  I  mean  to  confine 
myself  to  that  description  of  charity,  the 
statute  charity,  and  to  apply  it  to  this 
case  alone. 

The  devise  before  us  proposes  to  es 
tablish,  as  its  main  object,  a  school  of 
learning,  a  college.  There  are  provis 
ions,  of  course,  for  lodging,  clothing, 
and  feeding  the  pupils,  but  all  this  is 
subsidiary.  The  great  object  is  the  in 
struction  of  the  young;  although  it  pro 
poses  to  give  the  children  better  food 
and  clothes  and  lodging,  and  proposes 
that  the  system  of  education  shall  be 
somewhat  better  than  that  which  is  usu 
ally  provided  for  the  poor  and  destitute 
in  our  public  institutions  generally. 

The  main  object,  then,  is  to  establish 
a  school  of  learning  for  children,  begin 
ning  with  them  at  a  very  tender  age, 
and  retaining  them  (namely,  from  six 
years  to  eighteen)  till  they  are  on  the 
verge  of  manhood,  when  they  will  have 
expended  more  than  one  third  part  of 
the  average  duration  of  human  life. 
For  if  the  college  takes  them  at  six,  and 


AND  THE   RELIGIOUS  INSTRUCTION  OF  THE   YOUNG. 


511 


keeps  them  till  they  are  eighteen,  a 
period  of  twelve  years  will  be  passed 
within  its  walls ;  more  than  a  third  part 
of  the  average  of  human  life.  These 
children,  then,  are  to  be  taken  almost 
before  they  learn  their  alphabet,  and  .be 
discharged  about  the  time  that  men 
enter  on  the  active  business  of  life.  At 
six,  many  do  not  know  their  alphabet- 
John  Wesley  did  not  know  a  letter  till 
after  he  was  six  years  old,  and  his 
mother  then  took  him  on  her  lap,  and 
taught  him  his  alphabet  at  a  single 
lesson.  There  are  many  parents  who 
think  that  any  attempt  to  instil  the  ru 
diments  of  education  into  the  mind  of  a 
child  at  an  earlier  age,  is  little  better 
than  labor  thrown  away. 

The  great  object,  then,  which  Mr. 
Girard  seemed  to  have  in  view,  was  to 
take  these  orphans  at  this  very  tender 
age,  and  to  keep  them  within  his  walls 
until  they  were  entering  manhood. 
And  this  object  I  pray  your  honors 
steadily  to  bear  in  mind. 

I  never,  in  the  whole  course  of  my 
life,  listened  to  any  thing  with  more 
sincere  delight,  than  to  the  remarks  of 
my  learned  friend  who  opened  this 
cause,  on  the  nature  and  character  of 
true  charity.  I  agree  with  every  word 
he  said  on  that  subject.  I  almost  envy 
him  his  power  of  expressing  so  happily 
what  his  mind  conceives  so  clearly  and 
correctly.  He  is  right  when  he  speaks 
of  it  as  an  emanation  from  the  Chris 
tian  religion.  He  is  right  when  he 
says  that  it  has  its  origin  in  the  word  of 
God.  He  is  right  when  he  says  that  it 
was  unknown  throughout  all  the  world 
till  the  first  dawn  of  Christianity.  He 
is  right,  pre-eminently  right,  in  all  this, 
as  he  was  pre-eminently  happy  in  his 
powrer  of  clothing  his  thoughts  and  feel 
ings  in  appropriate  forms  of  speech. 
And  I  maintain,  that,  in  any  institu 
tion  for  the  instruction  of  youth,  where 
the  authority  of  God  is  disowned,  and 
the  duties  of  Christianity  derided  and 
despised,  and  its  ministers  shut  out 
from  all  participation  in  its  proceed 
ings,  there  can  no  more  be  charity,  true 
charity,  found  to  exist,  than  evil  can 
spring  out  of  the  Bible,  error  out  of 


truth,  or  hatred  and  animosity  come 
forth  from  the  bosom  of  perfect  love. 
No,  Sir !  JSTo,  Sir !  If  charity  denies 
its  birth  and  parentage,  if  it  turns  in 
fidel  to  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  if  it  turns  unbeliever,  it  is 
no  longer  charity!  There  is  no  longer 
charity,  either  in  a  Christian  sense  or 
in  the  sense  of  jurisprudence;  for  it 
separates  itself  from  the  fountain  of  its 
own  creation. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  religion;  there  is  nothing  in 
the  history  of  English  law,  either  before 
or  after  the  Conquest;  there  can  be 
found  no  such  thing  as  a  school  of  in 
struction  in  a  Christian  land,  from 
which  the  Christian  religion  has  been, 
of  intent  and  purpose,  rigorously  and 
opprobriously  excluded,  and  yet  such 
school  regarded  as  a  charitable  trust  or 
foundation.  This  is  the  first  instance 
on  record.  I  do  not  say  that  there  may 
not  be  charity  schools  in  which  religious 
instruction  is  not  provided.  I  need  not 
go  that  length,  although  I  take  that  to 
be  the  rule  of  the  English  law.  But 
what  I  do  say,  and  repeat,  is,  that  a 
school  for  the  instruction  of  the  young, 
which  sedulously  and  reproachfully  ex 
cludes  Christian  knowledge,  is  no  char 
ity,  either  on  principle  or  authority, 
and  is  not,  therefore,  entitled  to  the 
character  of  a  charity  in  a  court  of 
equity.  I  have  considered  this  proposi 
tion,  and  am  ready  to  stand  by  it. 

I  will  not  say  that  there  may  not  be  a 
charity  for  instruction,  in  which  there 
is  no  positive  provision  for  the  Chris 
tian  religion.  But  I  do  say,  and  do  in 
sist,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the 
history  of  religion,  no  such  thing  in  the 
history  of  human  law,  as  a  charity,  a 
school  of  instruction  for  children,  from 
which  the  Christian  religion  and  Chris 
tian  teachers  are  excluded,  as  unsafe 
and  unworthy  intruders.  Such  a  scheme 
is  deprived  of  that  which  enters  into 
the  very  essence  of  human  benevolence, 
when  that  benevolence  contemplates  in 
struction,  that  is  to  say,  religious  knowl 
edge,  connected  with  human  knowl 
edge.  It  is  this  which  causes  it  to  be 
regarded  as  a  charity ;  and  by  reason  of 


512 


THE    CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


this  it  is  entitled  to  the  special  favor  of 
the  courts  of  law.  This  is  the  vital 
question  which  must  be  decided  by  this 
court.  It  is  vital  to  the  understanding 
of  what  the  law  is,  it  is  vital  to  the  va 
lidity  of  this  devise. 

If  this  be  true,  if  there  can  be  no 
charity  in  that  plan  of  education  which 
opposes  Christianity,  then  that  goes  far 
to  decide  this  case.  I  take  it  that  this 
court,  in  looking  at  this  subject,  will 
see  the  important  bearing  of  this  point 
upon  it.  The  learned  counsel  said  that 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  was  not  an 
infidel  State.  It  is  true  that  she  is  not 
an  infidel  State.  She  has  a  Christian 
origin,  a  Christian  code  of  laws,  a 
system  of  legislation  founded  on  noth 
ing  else,  in  many  of  its  important  bear 
ings  upon  human  society,  than  the 
belief  of  the  people  of  Pennsylvania, 
their  firm  and  sincere  belief,  in  the  di 
vine  authority  and  great  importance  of 
the  truths  of  the  Christian  religion. 
And  she  should  the  more  carefully  seek 
to  preserve  them  pure. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  condition  and 
prospects  of  these  tender  children,  who 
are  to  be  submitted  to  this  experiment 
of  instruction  without  Christianity.  In 
the  first  place,  they  are  orphans,  have 
no  parents  to  guide  or  instruct  them  in 
the  way  in  which  they  should  go,  no 
father,  no  religious  mother,  to  lead  them 
to  the  pure  fount  of  Christianity;  they 
are  orphans.  If  they  were  only  poor, 
there  might  be  somebody  bound  by  ties 
of  human  affection  to  look  after  their 
spiritual  welfare;  to  see  that  they  im 
bibed  no  erroneous  opinions  on  the  sub 
ject  of  religion ;  that  they  run  into  no 
excessive  improprieties  of  belief  as  well 
as  conduct.  The  child  would  have  its 
father  or  mother  to  teach  it  to  lisp  the 
name  of  its  Creator  in  prayer,  or  hymn 
His  praise.  But  in  this  experimental 
school  of  instruction,  if  the  orphans 
have  any  friends  or  connections  able  to 
look  after  their  welfare,  it  shuts  them 
out.  It  is  made  the  duty  of  the  gov 
ernors  of  the  institution,  on  taking  the 
child,  so  to  make  out  the  indentures  of 
apprenticeship  as  to  keep  him  from  any 
after  interference  in  his  welfare  on  the 


part  of  guardians  or  relatives ;  to  keep 
them  from  withdrawing  him  from  the 
school,  or  interfering  with  his  instruc 
tion  whilst  he  is  in  the  school,  in  any 
manner  whatever. 

The  school  or  college  is  to  be  sur 
rounded  by  high  walls ;  there  are  to  be 
two  gates  in  these  walls,  and  no  more; 
they  are  to  be  of  iron  within,  and  iron 
bound  or  covered  without ;  thus  answer 
ing  more  to  the  description  of  a  castle 
than  a  school-house.  The  children  are 
to  be  thus  guarded  for  twelve  years  in 
this,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  a  prison,  nor 
do  I  mean  to  say  that  this  is  exactly 
close  confinement;  but  it  is  much  closer 
confinement  than  ordinarily  is  met  with, 
under  the  rules  of  any  institution  at 
present,  and  has  a  resemblance  to  the 
monastic  institutions  of  past  ages,  rath 
er  than  to  any  school  for  instruction  at 
this  period,  at  least  in  this  country. 

All  this  is  to  be  within  one  great  en 
closure  ;  all  that  is  done  for  the  bodily 
or  mental  welfare  of  the  child  is  to  be 
done  within  this  great  wall.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  children  could  attend 
public  worship  elsewhere.  Where  is 
the  proof  of  this?  There  is  no  such 
provision  in  the  devise;  there  is  nothing 
said  about  it  in  any  part  of  Mr.  Gi- 
rard's  will;  and  I  shall  show  presently 
that  any  such  thing  would  be  just  as  ad 
verse  to  Mr.  Girard's  whole  scheme,  as 
it  would  be  that  the  doctrines  of  Chris 
tianity  should  be  preached  within  the 
walls  of  the  college. 

These  children,  then,  are  taken  before 
they  know  the  alphabet.  They  are 
kept  till  the  period  of  early  manhood, 
and  then  sent  out  into  the  world  to 
enter  upon  its  business  and  affairs.  By 
this  time  the  character  will  have  been 
stamped.  For  if  there  is  any  truth  in 
the  Bible,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  those 
oracles  which  soar  above  all  human  au 
thority,  or  if  any  thing  be  established 
as  a  general  fact,  by  the  experience  of 
mankind,  in  this  first  third  of  human 
life  the  character  is  formed.  And  what 
sort  of  a  character  is  likely  to  be  made 
by  this  process,  this  experimental  sys 
tem  of  instruction? 

I  have  read  the  two  provisions  of  Mr. 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF   THE   YOUNG. 


513 


Girard's  will  in  relation  to  this  feature 
of  his  school.  The  first  excludes  the 
Christian  religion  and  all  its  ministers 
from  its  walls.  The  second  explains 
the  whole  principles  upon  which  he  pur 
poses  to  conduct  his  school.  It  was  to 
try  an  experiment  in  education,  never 
before  known  to  the  Christian  world. 
It  had  been  recommended  often  enough 
among  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the 
Christian  world.  But  it  was  never 
known  to  exist,  never  adopted  by  any 
body  even  professing  a  connection  with 
Christianity.  And  I  cannot  do  better, 
in  order  to  show  the  tendency  and  ob 
ject  of  this  institution,  than  to  read 
from  a  paper  by  Bishop  White,  which 
has  been  referred  to  by  the  other  side. 

In  order  to  a  right  understanding  of 
what  was  Mr.  Girard's  real  intention 
and  original  design,  we  have  only  to 
read  carefully  the  words  of  the  clause  I 
have  referred  to.  He  enjoins  that  no 
ministers  of  religion,  of  any  sects,  shall 
be  allowed  to  enter  his  college,  on  any 
pretence  whatever.  Now,  it  is  obvious, 
that  by  sects  he  means  Christian  sects. 
Any  of  the  followers  of  Voltaire  or 
D'Alembert  may  have  admission  into 
this  school  whenever  they  please,  be 
cause  they  are  not  usually  spoken  of  as 
"sects."  The  doors  are  to  be  opened 
to  the  opposers  and  revilers  of  Chris 
tianity,  in  every  form  and  shape,  and 
shut  to  its  supporters.  While  the  voice 
of  the  upholders  of  Christianity  is  never 
to  be  heard  within  the  walls,  the  voices 
of  those  who  impugn  Christianity  may 
be  raised  high  and  loud,  till  they  shake 
the  marble  roof  of  the  building.  It  is 
no  less  derogatory  thus  to  exclude  the 
one,  and  admit  the  other,  than  it  would 
be  to  make  a  positive  provision  and  all 
the  necessary  arrangements  for  lectures 
and  lessons  and  teachers,  for  all  the  de 
tails  of  the  doctrines  of  infidelity.  It  is 
equally  derogatory,  it  is  the  same  in 
principle,  thus  to  shut  the  door  to  one 
party,  and  open  the  door  to  the  other. 

We  must  reason  as  to  the  probable 
results  of  such  a  system  according  to 
natural  consequences.  They  say,  on 
the  other  side,  that  infidel  teachers  will 
not  be  admitted  in  this  school.  How 


do  they  know  that  ?  What  is  the  in 
evitable  tendency  of  such  an  education 
as  is  here  prescribed?  What  is  likely 
to  occur  ?  The  court  cannot  suppose 
that  the  trustees  will  act  in  opposition 
to  the  directions  of  the  will.  If  they 
accept  the  trust,  they  must  fulfil  it,  and 
carry  out  the  details  of  Mr.  Girard's 
plan. 

Kow,  what  is  likely  to  be  the  effect 
of  this  system  on  the  minds  of  these 
children,  thus  left  solely  to  its  perni 
cious  influence,  with  no  one  to  care  for 
their  spiritual  welfare  in  this  world  or 
the  next  ?  They  are  to  be  left  entirely 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  those  who  will 
try  upon  them  this  experiment  of  moral 
philosophy  or  philosophical  morality. 
Morality  without  sentiment;  benevo 
lence  towards  man,  without  a  sense  of 
responsibility  towards  God;  the  duties 
of  this  life  performed,  without  any 
reference  to  the  life  which  is  to  come ; 
this  is  Mr.  Girard's  theory  of  useful 
education. 

Half  of  these  poor  children  may  die 
before  the  term  of  their  education  ex 
pires.  Still,  those  who  survive  must 
be  brought  up  imbued  fully  with  the 
inevitable  tendencies  of  the  system. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  may 
be  lay  preachers  among  them.  Lay 
preachers  !  This  is  ridiculous  enough 
in  a  country  of  Christianity  and  relig 
ion.  [Here  some  one  handed  Mr. 
Webster  a  note.]  A  friend  informs  me 
that  four  of  the  principal  religious  sects 
in  this  country,  the  Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  Bap 
tists,  allow  no  lay  preachers;  and  these 
four  constitute  a  large  majority  of  the 
religious  and  Christian  portion  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  And, 
besides,  lay  preaching  would  be  just  as 
adverse  to  Mr.  Girard's  original  object 
and  whole  plan  as  professional  preach 
ing,  provided  it  should  be  Christianity 
which  should  be  preached. 

It  is  plain,  as  plain  as  language  can 
be  made,  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
allow  the  minds  of  these  children  to  be 
troubled  about  religion  of  any  kind, 
whilst  they  were  within  the  college. 
And  why?  He  himself  assigns  the 


514 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


reason.  Because  of  the  difficulty  and 
trouble,  he  says,  that  might  arise  from 
the  multitude  of  sects,  and  creeds,  and 
teachers,  and  the  various  clashing  doc 
trines  and  tenets  advanced  by  the  differ 
ent  preachers  of  Christianity.  There 
fore  his  desire  as  to  these  orphans  is, 
that  their  minds  should  be  kept  free 
from  all  bias  of  any  kind  in  favor  of 
any  description  of  Christian  creed,  till 
they  arrived  at  manhood,  and  should 
have  left  the  walls  of  his  school. 

Now,  are  not  laymen  equally  sectarian 
in  their  views  with  clergymen  ?  And 
would  it  not  be  just  as  easy  to  prevent 
sectarian  doctrines  from  being  preached 
by  a  clergyman,  as  from  being  taught 
by  a  layman  ?  It  is  idle,  therefore,  to 
speak  of  lay  preaching. 

MR.  SERGEANT  here  rose,  and  said  that 
they  on  their  side  had  not  uttered  one  word 
about  lay  preaching.  It  was  lay  teaching 
they  spoke  of. 

Well,  I  would  just  as  soon  take  it 
that  way  as  the  other,  teaching  as 
preaching.  Is  not  the  teaching  of  lay 
men  as  sectarian  as  the  preaching  of 
clergymen?  What  is  the  difference 
between  unlettered  laymen  and  lettered 
clergymen  in  this  respect  ?  Every  one 
knows  that  laymen  are  as  violent  con 
troversialists  as  clergymen,  and  the  less 
informed  the  more  violent.  So  this, 
while  it  is  a  little  more  ridiculous,  is 
equally  obnoxious.  According  to  my 
experience,  a  layman  is  just  as  likely  to 
launch  out  into  sectarian  views,  and  to 
advance  clashing  doctrines  and  violent, 
bigoted  prejudices,  as  a  professional 
preacher,  and  even  more  so.  Every 
objection  to  professional  religious  in 
struction  applies  with  still  greater  force 
to  lay  teaching.  As  in  other  cases,  so 
in  this,  the  greatest  degree  of  candor  is 
usually  found  accompanying  the  greatest 
degree  of  knowledge.  Nothing  is  more 
apt  to  be  positive  and  dogmatical  than 
ignorance. 

But  there  is  no  provision  in  any  part 
of  Mr.  Girard's  will  for  the  introduction 
of  any  lay  teaching  on  religious  matters 
whatever.  The  children  are  to  get  their 
religion  when  they  leave  his  school,  and 


they  are  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  re 
ligion  before  they  do  leave  it.  They 
are  the*  to  choose  their  religious  opin 
ions,  and  not  before. 

MR.  BINNEY.  "  Choose  their  tenets  "  is 
the  expression. 

Tenets  are  opinions,  I  believe.  The 
mass  of  one's  religious  tenets  makes  up 
one's  religion. 

Now,  it-is  evident  that  Mr.  Girard 
meant  to  found  a  school  of  morals, 
without  any  reference  to,  or  connection 
with,  religion.  But,  after  all,  there  is 
nothing  original  in  this  plan  of  his.  It 
has  its  origin  in  a  deistical  source,  but 
not  from  the  highest  school  of  infidelity. 
Not  from  Bolingbroke,  or  Shaftesbury, 
or  Gibbon;  not  even  from  Voltaire  or 
D'Alembert.  It  is  from  two  persons 
who  were  probably  known  to  Mr.  Gi 
rard  in  the  early  part  of  his  life;  it  is 
from  Mr.  Thomas  Paine  and  Mr.  Vol- 
ney.  Mr.  Thomas  Paine,  in  his  "  Age 
of  Reason,"  says:  "  Let  us  devise  means 
to  establish  schools  of  instruction,  that 
we  may  banish  the  ignorance  that  the 
ancient  regime  of  kings  and  priests  has 
spread  among  the  people.  Let  us  prop 
agate  morality,  unfettered  by  super 
stition." 

MR.  BINNEY.  What  do  you  get  that 
from? 

The  same  place  that  Mr.  Girard  got 
this  provision  of  his  will  from,  Paine's 
' '  Age  of  Reason. ' '  The  same  phraseol 
ogy  in  effect  is  here.  Paine  disguised 
his  real  meaning,  it  is  true.  He  said : 
"  Let  us  devise  means  to  establish 
schools  to  propagate  morality,  unfet 
tered  by  superstition."  Mr.  Girard, 
who  had  no  disguise  about  him,  uses 
plain  language  to  express  the  same 
meaning.  In  Mr.  Girard's  view,  relig 
ion  is  just  that  thing  which  Mr.  Paine 
calls  superstition.  "  Let  us  establish 
schools  of  morality,"  said  he,  "un 
fettered  by  religious  tenets.  Let  us 
give  these  children  a  system  of  pure 
morals  before  they  adopt  any  religion." 
The  ancient  regime  of  which  Paine 
spoke  as  obnoxious  was  that  of  kings 
and  priests.  That  was  the  popular 
way  he  had  of  making  any  thing  ob- 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF  THE  YOUNG. 


515 


noxious  that  he  wished  to  destroy. 
Now,  if  he  had  merely  wished  to  get 
rid  of  the  dogmas  which  he  says  were 
established  by  kings  and  priests,  if  he 
had  no  desire  to  abolish  the  Christian 
religion  itself,  he  could  have  thus  ex 
pressed  himself:  "  Let  us  rid  ourselves 
of  the  errors  of  kings  and  priests,  and 
plant  morality  on  the  plain  text  of  the 
Christian  religion,  with  the  simplest 
forms  of  religious  worship." 

I  do  not  intend  to  leave  this  part  of 
the  cause,  however,  without  a  still  more 
distinct  statement  of  the  objections  to 
this  scheme  of  instruction.  This  is 
due,  I  think,  to  the  subject  and  to  the 
occasion;  and  I  trust  I  shall  not  be 
considered  presumptuous,  or  as  trench 
ing  upon  the  duties  which  properly  be 
long  to  another  profession.  But  I  deem 
it  due  to  the  cause  of  Christianity  to 
take  up  the  notions  of  this  scheme  of 
Mr.  Girard,  and  show  how  mistaken  is 
the  idea  of  calling  it  a  charity.  In  the 
first  place,  then,  I  say,  this  scheme  is 
derogatory  to  Christianity,  because  it 
rejects  Christianity  from  the  education 
of  youth,  by  rejecting  its  teachers,  by  re 
jecting  the  ordinary  agencies  of  instilling 
the  Christian  religion  into  the  minds 
of  the  young.  I  do  not  say  that,  in  or 
der  to  make  this  a  charity,  there  should 
be  a  positive  provision  for  the  teaching  of 
Christianity,  although,  as  I  have  already 
observed,  I  take  that  to  be  the  rule  in 
an  English  court  of  equity.  But  I  need 
not,  in  this  case,  claim  the  whole  bene 
fit  of  that  rule.  I  say  it  is  derogatorv, 
because  there  is  a  positive  rejection  of 
Christianity ;  because  it  rejects  the  ordi 
nary  means  and  agencies  of  Christianity. 
He  who  rejects  the  ordinary  means  of 
accomplishing  an  end,  means  to  defeat 
that  end  itself,  or  else  he  has  no  mean 
ing.  And  this  is  true,  although  the 
means  originally  be  means  of  human 
appointment,  and  not  attaching  to  or 
resting  on  any  higher  authority. 

For  example,  if  the  New  Testament 
had  contained  a  set  of  principles  of 
morality  and  religion,  without  refer 
ence  to  the  means  by  which  those  prin 
ciples  were  to  be  established,  and  if  in 
the  course  of  time  a  system  of  means 


had  sprung  up,  become  identified  with 
the  history  of  the  world,  become  general, 
sanctioned  by  continued  use  and  custom, 
then  he  who  should  reject  those  means 
would  design  to  reject,  and  would  reject, 
that  morality  and  religion  themselves. 

This  would  be  true  in  a  case  where 
the  end  rested  on  divine  authority,  and 
human  agency  devised  and  used  the 
means.  But  if  the  means  themselves 
be  of  divine  authority  also,  then  the 
rejection  of  them  is  a  direct  rejection 
of  that  authority. 

Now,  I  suppose  there  is  nothing  in 
the  New  Testament  more  clearly  estab 
lished  by  the  Author  of  Christianity, 
than  the  appointment  of  a  Christian 
ministry.  The  world  was  to  be  evan 
gelized,  was  to  be  brought  out  of  dark 
ness  into  light,  by  the  influences  of  the 
Christian  religion,  spread  and  propa 
gated  by  the  instrumentality  of  man. 
A  Christian  ministry  was  therefore  ap 
pointed  by  the  Author  of  the  Christian 
religion  himself,  and  it  stands  on  the 
same  authority  as  any  other  part  of  his 
religion.  When  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel  were  to  be  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  Christianity,  the  dis 
ciples  were  commanded  to  go  forth  into 
all  the  cities,  and  to  preach  "  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  It 
was  added,  that  whosoever  would  not 
receive  them,  nor  hear  their  words,  it 
should  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha  than  for  them.  And  after 
his  resurrection,  in  the  appointment  of 
the  great  mission  to  the  whole  human 
race,  the  Author  of  Christianity  com 
manded  his  disciples  that  they  should 
*'  go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature."  This  was 
one  of  his  last  commands;  and  one  of 
his  last  promises  was  the  assurance, 
"Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world!"  I  say,  there 
fore,  there  is  nothing  set  forth  more  au 
thentically  in  the  New  Testament  than 
the  appointment  of  a  Christian  minis 
try;  and  he  who  does  not  believe  this 
does  not  and  cannot  believe  the  rest. 

It  is  true  that  Christian  ministers,  in 
this  age  of  the  world,  are  selected  in 
different  ways  and  different  modes  by 


516 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


different  sects  and  denominations.  But 
there,  are,  still,  ministers  of  all  sects  and 
denominations.  Why  should  we  shut 
our  eyes  to  the  whole  history  of  Chris 
tianity?  Is  it  not  the  preaching  of 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  that  has  evan 
gelized  the  more  civilized  part  of  the 
world?  Why  do  we  at  this  day  enjoy 
the  lights  and  benefits  of  Christianity 
ourselves?  Do  we  not  owe  it  to  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Christian  min 
istry?  The  ministers  of  Christianity, 
departing  from  Asia  Minor,  traversing 
Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe,  to  Iceland, 
Greenland,  and  the  poles  of  the  earth, 
suffering  all  things,  enduring  all  things, 
hoping  all  things,  raising  men  every 
where  from  the  ignorance  of  idol  wor 
ship  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God, 
and  everywhere  bringing  life  and  im 
mortality  to  light  through  the  Gospel, 
have  only  been  acting  in  obedience  to 
the  Divine  instruction ;  they  were  com 
manded  to  go  forth,  and  they  have  gone 
forth,  and  they  still  go  forth.  They 
have  sought,  and  they  still  seek,  to  be 
able  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea 
ture  under  the  whole  heaven.  And 
where  was  Christianity  ever  received, 
where  were  its  truths  ever  poured  into 
the  human  heart,  where  did  its  waters, 
Springing  up  into  everlasting  life,  ever 
burst  forth,  except  in  the  track  of  a 
Christian  ministry?  Did  we  ever  hear 
of  an  instance,  does  history  record  an 
instance,  of  any  part  of  the  globe  Chris 
tianized  by  lay  preachers,  or  "  lay  teach 
ers  "?  And,  descending  from  kingdoms 
and  empires  to  cities  and  countries,  to 
parishes  and  villages,  do  \ve  not  all 
know,  that  wherever  Christianity  has 
been  carried,  and  wherever  it  has  been 
taught,  by  human  agency,  that  agency 
was  the  agency  of  ministers  of  the  Gos 
pel?  It  is  all  idle,  and  a  mockery,  to 
pretend  that  any  man  has  respect  for 
the  Christian  religion  who  yet  derides, 
reproaches,  and  stigmatizes  all  its  min 
isters  and  teachers.  It  is  all  idle,  it  is 
a  mockery,  and  an  insult  to  common 
sense,  to  maintain  that  a  school  for  the 
instruction  of  youth,  from  which  Chris 
tian  instruction  by  Christian  teachers  is 
sedulously  and  rigorously  shut  out,  is 


not  deistical  and  infidel  both  in  its 
purpose  and  in  its  tendency.  I  insist, 
therefore,  that  this  plan  of  education  is, 
in  this  respect,  derogatory  to  Christian 
ity,  in  opposition  to  it,  and  calculated 
either  to  subvert  or  to  supersede  it. 

In  the  next  place,  this  scheme  of  edu 
cation  is  derogatory  to  Christianity,  be 
cause  it  proceeds  upon  the  presumption 
that  the  Christian  religion  is  not  the 
only  true  foundation,  or  any  necessary 
foundation,  of  morals.  The  ground 
taken  is,  that  religion  is  not  necessary 
to  morality,  that  benevolence  may  be 
insured  by  habit,  and  that  all  the  vir 
tues  may  flourish,  and  be  safely  left  to 
the  chance  of  flourishing,  without  touch 
ing  the  waters  of  the  living  spring  of 
religious  responsibility.  With  him  who 
thinks  thus,  what  can  be  the  value  of 
the  Christian  revelation?  So  the  Chris 
tian  world  has  not  thought ;  for  by  that 
Christian  world,  throughout  its  broadest 
extent,  it  has  been,  and  is,  held  as  a 
fundamental  truth,  that  religion  is  the 
only  solid  basis  of  morals,  and  that 
moral  instruction  not  resting  on  this 
basis  is  only  a  building  upon  sand. 
And  at  what  age  of  the  Christian  era 
have  those  who  professed  to  teach  the 
Christian  religion,  or  to  believe  in  its 
authority  and  importance,  not  insisted 
on  the  absolute  necessity  of  inculcating 
its  principles  and  its  precepts  upon  the 
minds  of  the  young?  In  what  age,  by 
what  sect,  where,  when,  by  whom,  has 
religious  truth  been  excluded  from  the 
education  of  youth?  Nowhere;  never. 
Everywhere,  and  at  all  times,  it  has 
been,  and  is,  regarded  as  essential.  It 
is  of  the  essence,  the  vitality,  of  useful 
instruction.  From  all  this  Mr.  Girard 
dissents.  His  plan  denies  the  necessity 
and  the  propriety  of  religious  instruc 
tion  as  a  part  of  the  education  of  youth. 
He  dissents,  not  only  from  all  the  senti 
ments  of  Christian  mankind,  from  all 
common  conviction,  and  from  the  re 
sults  of  all  experience,  but  he  dissents 
also  from  still  higher  authority,  the 
word  of  God  itself.  My  learned  friend 
has  referred,  with  propriety,  to  one  of 
the  commands  of  the  Decalogue;  but 
there  is  another,  a  first  commandment, 


AND   THE  KELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION  OF   THE  YOUNG. 


517 


and  that  is  a  precept  of  religion,  and  it 
is  in  subordination  to  this  that  the 
moral  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  are 
proclaimed.  This  first  great  command 
ment  teaches  man  that  there  is  one,  and 
only  one,  great  First  Cause,  one,  and 
only  one,  proper  object  of  human  wor 
ship.  This  is  the  great,  the  ever  fresh, 
the  overflowing  fountain  of  all  revealed 
truth.  Without  it,  human  life  is  a  des 
ert,  of  no  known  termination  on  any 
side,  but  shut  in  on  all  sides  by  a  dark 
and  impenetrable  horizon.  Without  the 
light  of  this  truth,  man  knows  nothing 
of  his  origin,  and  nothing  of  his  end. 
And  when  the  Decalogue  was  delivered 
to  the  Jews,  with  this  great  announce 
ment  and  command  at  its  head,  what 
said  the  inspired  lawgiver?  that  it  should 
be  kept  from  children?  that  it  should 
be  reserved  as  a  communication  fit  only 
for  mature  age  ?  Far,  far  otherwise. 
"  And  these  words,  which  I  command 
thee  this  day,  shall  be  in  thy  heart. 
And  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently 
unto  thy  children,  and  shall  talk  of 
them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy  house, 
and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way, 
when  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou 
risest  up." 

There  is  an  authority  still  more  im 
posing  and  awful.  When  little  children 
were  brought  into  the  presence  of  the 
Son  of  God,  his  disciples  proposed  to 
send  them  away;  but  he  said,  "  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me."  Unto 
me ;  he  did  not  send  them  first  for  les 
sons  in  morals  to  the  schools  of  the 
Pharisees,  or  to  the  unbelieving  Saddu- 
cees,  nor  to  read  the  precepts  and  les 
sons  pliylacteried  on  the  garments  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood;  he  said  nothing  of 
different  creeds  or  clashing  doctrines; 
but  he  opened  at  once  to  the  youthful 
mind  the  everlasting  fountain  of  living 
waters,  the  only  source  of  eternal  truths : 
**  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me."  And  that  injunction  is  of  perpet 
ual  obligation.  It  addresses  itself  to 
day  with  the  same  earnestness  and  the 
same  authority  which  attended  its  first 
utterance  to  the  Christian  world.  It  is 
of  force  everywhere,  and  at  all  times. 
It  extends  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  it 


will  reach  to  the  end  of  time,  always 
and  everywhere  sounding  in  the  ears  of 
men,  with  an  emphasis  which  no  repeti 
tion  can  weaken,  and  with  an  authority 
which  nothing  can  supersede:  "  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me." 

And  not  only  my  heart  and  my  judg 
ment,  my  belief  and  my  conscience,  in 
struct  me  that  this  great  precept  should 
be  obeyed,  but  the  idea  is  so  sacred,  the 
solemn  thoughts  connected  with  it  so 
crowd  upon  me,  it  is  so  utterly  at  va 
riance  with  this  system  of  philosophical 
morality  which  we  have  heard  advocated, 
that  I  stand  and  speak  here  in  fear  of 
being  influenced  by  my  feelings  to  ex 
ceed  the  proper  line  of  my  professional 
duty.  Go  thy  way  at  this  time,  is  the 
language  of  philosophical  morality,  and 
I  will  send  for  thee  at  a  more  convenient 
season.  This  is  the  language  of  Mr. 
Girard  in  his  will.  In  this  there  is 
neither  religion  nor  reason. 

The  earliest  and  the  most  urgent  in 
tellectual  want  of  human  nature  is  the 
knowledge  of  its  origin,  its  duty,  and 
its  destiny.  "Whence  am  I,  what  am 
I,  and  what  is  before  me?"  This  is 
the  cry  of  the  human  soul,  so  soon  as  it 
raises  its  contemplation  above  visible, 
material  things. 

When  an  intellectual  being  finds  him 
self  on  this  earth,  as  soon  as  the  facul 
ties  of  reason  operate,  one  of  the  first 
inquiries  of  his  mind  is,  "  Shall  I  be 
here  always  ?"  "Shall  I  live  here  for 
ever?"  And  reasoning  from  what  he 
sees  daily  occurring  to  others,  he  learns 
to  a  certainty  that  his  state  of  being 
must  one  day  be  changed.  I  do  not 
mean  to  deny,  that  it  may  be  true  that 
he  is  created  with  this  consciousness; 
but  whether  it  be  consciousness,  or  the 
result  of  his  reasoning  faculties,  man 
soon  learns  that  he  must  die.  And  of 
all  sentient  beings,  he  alone,  so  far  as 
we  can  judge,  attains  to  this  knowledge. 
His  Maker  has  made  him  capable  of 
learning  this.  Before  he  knows  his  ori 
gin  and  destiny,  he  knows  that  he  is  to 
die.  Then  comes  that  most  urgent  and 
solemn  demand  for  light  that  ever  pro 
ceeded,  or  can  proceed,  from  the  pro 
found  and  anxious  breedings  of  the 


518 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


human  soul.  It  is  stated,  with  wonder 
ful  force  and  beauty,  in  that  incom 
parable  composition,  the  book  of  Job: 
"  For  there  is  hope  of  a  tree,  if  it  be 
cut  down,  that  it  will  sprout  again,  and 
that  the  tender  branch  thereof  will  not 
cease;  that,  through  the  scent  of  water, 
it  will  bud,  and  bring  forth  boughs  like 
a  plant.  But  if  a  man  die,  shall  he  live 
again?"  And  that  question  nothing 
but  God,  and  the  religion  of  God,  can 
solve.  Religion  does  solve  it,  and 
teaches  every  man  that  he  is  to  live 
again,  and  that  the  duties  of  this  life 
have  reference  to  the  life  which  is  to 
come.  And  hence,  since  the  introduc 
tion  of  Christianity,  it  has  been  the 
duty,  as  it  has  been  the  effort,  of  the 
great  and  the  good,  to  sanctify  human 
knowledge,  to  bring  it  to  the  fount,  and 
to  baptize  learning  into  Christianity;  to 
gather  up  all  its  productions,  its  earliest 
and  its  latest,  its  blossoms  and  its  fruits, 
and  lay  them  all  upon  the  altar  of  relig 
ion  and  virtue. 

Another  important  point  involved  in 
this  question  is,  What  becomes  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  in  a  school  thus  es 
tablished?  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
this  stands  exactly  on  the  same  authori 
ty  as  the  Christian  religion,  but  I  mean 
to  say  that  the  observance  of  the  Sab 
bath  is  a  part  of  Christianity  in  all  its 
forms.  All  Christians  admit  the  observ 
ance  of  the  Sabbath.  All  admit  that 
there  is  a  Lord's  day,  although  there 
may  be  a  difference  in  the  belief  as  to 
which  is  the  right  day  to  be  observed. 
Now,  I  say  that  in  this  institution,  under 
Mr.  Girard's  scheme,  the  ordinary  ob 
servance  of  the  Sabbath  could  not  take 
place,  because  the  ordinary  means  of 
observing  it  are  excluded.  I  know  that 
1  shall  be  told  here,  also,  that  lay  teach 
ers  would  come  in  again;  and  I  say 
again,  in  reply,  that,  where  the  ordinary 
means  of  attaining  an  end  are  excluded, 
the  intention  is  to  exclude  the  end  itself. 
There  can  be  no  Sabbath  in  this  college, 
there  can  be  no  religious  observance  of 
the  Lord's  day;  for  there  are  no  means 
for  attaining  that  end.  It  will  be  said, 
that  the  children  would  be  permitted  to 
go  out.  There  is  nothing  seen  of  this 


permission  in  Mr.  Girard's  will.  And 
I  say  again,  that  it  would  be  just  as 
much  opposed  to  Mr.  Girard's  whole 
scheme  to  allow  these  children  to  go  out 
and  attend  places  of  public  worship  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  as  it  would  be  to  have 
ministers  of  religion  to  preach  to  them 
within  the  walls;  because,  if  they  go 
out  to  hear  preaching,  they  will  hear  just 
as  much  about  religious  controversies, 
and  clashing  doctrines,  and  more,  than 
if  appointed  preachers  officiated  in  the 
college.  His  object,  as  he  states,  was  to 
keep  their  minds  free  from  all  religious 
doctrines  and  sects,  and  he  would  just 
as  much  defeat  his  ends  by  sending  them 
out  as  by  having  religious  instruction 
within.  Where,  then,  are  these  little 
children  to  go?  Where  can  they  go  to 
learn  the  truth,  to  reverence  the  Sab 
bath?  They  are  far  from  their  friends, 
they  have  no  one  to  accompany  them  to 
any  place  of  worship,  no  one  to  show 
them  the  right  from  the  wrong  course ; 
their  minds  must  be  kept  clear  from  all 
bias  on  the  subject,  and  they  are  just  as 
far  from  the  ordinary  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  as  if  there  were  no  Sabbath  day 
at  all.  And  where  there  is  no  observ 
ance  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  there  will 
of  course  be  no  public  worship  of  God. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  I  will 
observe,  that  there  has  been  recently 
held  a  large  convention  of  clergymen 
and  laymen  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  to  lead 
the  minds  of  the  Christian  public  to  the 
importance  of  a  more  particular  observ 
ance  of  the  Christian  Sabbath;  and  I 
will  read,  as  part  of  my  argument,  an 
extract  from  their  address,  which  bears 
with  peculiar  force  upon  this  case. 

"  It  is  alike  obvious  that  the  Sabbath 
exerts  its  salutary  power  by  making  the 
population  acquainted  with  the  being,  per 
fections,  and  laws  of  God ;  with  our  rela 
tions  to  him  as  his  creatures,  and  our  obli 
gations  to  him  as  rational,  accountable- 
subjects,  and  with  our  character  as  sinners, 
for  whom  his  mercy  has  provided  a  Saviour; 
under  whose  government  we  live  to  be  re 
strained  from  sin  and  reconciled  to  God, 
and  fitted  by  his  word  and  spirit  for  the  in 
heritance  above. 

"  It  is  by  the  reiterated  instruction  and 
impression  which  the  Sabbath  imparts  to 


AND    THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF  THE   YOUNG. 


519 


the  population  of  a  nation,  by  the  moral 
principle  which  it  forms,  by  the  conscience 
which  it  maintains,  by  the  habits  of  method, 
cleanliness,  and  industry  it  creates,  by  the 
rest  and  renovated  vigor  it  bestows  on  ex 
hausted  human  nature,  by  the  lengthened 
life  and  higher  health  it  affords,  by  the 
holiness  it  inspires,  and  cheering  hopes  of 
heaven,  and  the  protection  and  favor  of 
God,  which  its  observance  insures,  that  the 
Sabbath  is  rendered  the  moral  conservator 
of  nations. 

"  The  omnipresent  influence  the  Sabbath 
exerts,  however,  by  no  secret  charm  or 
compendious  action,  upon  masses  of  un 
thinking  minds ;  but  by  arresting  the 
stream  of  worldly  thoughts,  interests,  and 
affections,  stopping  the  din  of  business,  un 
lading  the  mind  of  its  cares  and  responsi 
bilities,  and  the  body  of  its  burdens,  while 
God  speaks  to  men,  and  they  attend,  and 
hear,  and  fear,  and  learn  to  do  his  will. 

"  You  might  as  well  put  out  the  sun, 
and  think  to  enlighten  the  world  with 
tapers,  destroy  the  attraction  of  gravity, 
and  think  to  wield  the  universe  by  human 
powers,  as  to  extinguish  the  moral  illumina 
tion  of  the  Sabbath,  and  break  this  glori 
ous  main-spring  of  the  moral  government 
of  God." 

And  I  would  ask,  Would  any  Christian 
man  consider  it  desirable  for  his  orphan 
children,  after  his  death,  to  find  refuge 
within  this  asylum,  under  all  the  circum 
stances  and  influences  which  will  necessa 
rily  surround  its  inmates?  Are  there,  or 
will  there  be,  any  Christian  parents  who 
would  desire  that  their  children  should 
be  placed  in  this  school,  to  be  for  twelve 
years  exposed  to  the  pernicious  influ 
ences  which  must  be  brought  to  bear  on 
their  minds?  I  very  much  doubt  if  there 
is  any  Christian  father  who  hears  me  this 
day,  and  I  am  quite  sure  that  there  is 
no  Christian  mother,  who,  if  called  upon 
to  lie  down  on  the  bed  of  death,  al 
though  sure  to  leave  her  children  as  poor 
as  children  can  be  left,  who  would  not 
rather  trust  them,  nevertheless,  to  the 
Christian  charity  of  the  world,  however 
uncertain  it  has  been  said  to  be,  than 
place  them  where  their  physical  wants 
and  comforts  would  be  abundantly  at 
tended  to,  but  away  from  the  solaces 
and  consolations,  the  hopes  and  the 
grace,  of  the  Christian  religion.  She 


would  rather  trust  them  to  the  mercy 
and  kindness  of  that  spirit,  which,  when 
it  has  nothing  else  left,  gives  a  cup  of 
cold  water  in  the  name  of  a  disciple ;  to 
that  spirit  which  has  its  origin  in  the 
fountain  of  all  good,  and  of  which  we 
have  on  record  an  example  the  most 
beautiful,  the  most  touching,  the  most 
intensely  affecting,  that  the  world's 
history  contains,  I  mean  the  offering  of 
the  poor  widow,  who  threw  her  two 
mites  into  the  treasury.  "And  he 
looked  up,  and  saw  the  rich  men  cast 
ing  their  gifts  into  the  treasury ;  and  he 
saw  also  a  certain  poor  widow  casting  in 
thither  two  mites.  And  he  said,  Of  a 
truth  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  poor 
widow  hath  cast  in  more  than  they  all ; 
for  all  these  have,  of  their  abundance, 
cast  in  unto  the  offerings  of  God:  but 
she  of  her  penury  hath  cast  in  all  the 
living  that  she  had. ' '  What  more  ten 
der,  more  solemnly  affecting,  more  pro 
foundly  pathetic,  than  this  charity,  this 
offering  to  God,  of  a  farthing!  We 
know  nothing  of  her  name,  her  family, 
or  her  tribe.  We  only  know  that  she  was 
a  poor  woman,  and  a  widow,  of  whom 
there  is  nothing  left  upon  record  but  this 
sublimely  simple  story,  that,  when  the 
rich  came  to  cast  their  proud  offerings  into 
the  treasury,  this  poor  woman  came  also, 
and  cast  in  her  two  mites,  which  made  a 
farthing !  And  that  example,  thus  made 
the  subject  of  divine  commendation,  has 
been  read,  and  told,  and  gone  abroad 
everywhere,  and  sunk  deep  into  a  hun 
dred  millions  of  hearts,  since  the  com 
mencement  of  the  Christian  era,  and  has 
done  more  good  than  could  be  accom 
plished  by  a  thousand  marble  palaces, 
because  it  was  charity  mingled  with  true 
benevolence,  given  in  the  fear,  the  love, 
the  service,  and  honor  of  God;  because 
it  was  charity,  that  had  its  origin  in  re 
ligious  feeling ;  because  it  was  a  gift  to 
the  honor  of  God! 

Cases  have  come  before  the  courts,  of 
bequests,  in  last  wills,  made  or  given  to 
God,  without  any  more  specific  direc 
tion;  and  these  bequests  have  been  re 
garded  as  creating  charitable  uses.  But 
can  that  be  truly  called  a  charity  which 
flies  in  the  face  of  all  the  laws  of  God 


520 


THE   CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY 


and  all  the  usages  of  Christian  man?  I 
arraign  no  man  for  mixing  up  a  love  of 
distinction  and  notoriety  with  his  chari 
ties.  I  blame  not  Mr.  Girard  because 
he  desired  to  raise  a  splendid  marble 
palace  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  beauti 
ful  city,  that  should  endure  for  ages,  and 
transmit  his  name  and  fame  to  posterity. 
But  his  school  of  learning  is  not  to  be 
valued,  because  it  has  not  the  chasten 
ing  influences  of  true  religion ;  because 
it  has  no  fragrance  of  the  spirit  of 
Christianity.  It  is  not  a  charity,  for  it 
has  not  that  which  gives  to  a  charity  for 
education  its  chief  value.  It  will,  there 
fore,  soothe  the  heart  of  no  Christian 
parent,  dying  in  poverty  and  distress, 
that  those  who  owe  to  him  their  being 
may  be  led,  and  fed,  and  clothed  by 
Mr.  Girard's  bounty,  at  the  expense  of 
being  excluded  from  all  the  means  of 
religious  instruction  afforded  to  other 
children,  and  shut  up  through  the  most 
interesting  period  of  their  lives  in  a  sem 
inary  without  religion,  and  with  moral 
sentiments  as  cold  as  its  own  marble 
walls. 

I  now  come  to  the  consideration  of 
the  second  part  of  this  clause  in  the  will, 
that  is  to  say,  the  reasons  assigned  by 
Mr.  Girard  for  making  these  restrictions 
with  regard  to  the  ministers  of  religion ; 
and  I  say  that  these  are  much  more  de 
rogatory  to  Christianity  than  the  main 
provision  itself,  excluding  them.  He 
says  that  there  are  such  a  multitude  of 
sects  and  such  diversity  of  opinion,  that 
he  will  exclude  all  religion  and  all  its 
ministers,  in  order  to  keep  the  minds  of 
the  children  free  from  clashing  contro 
versies.  Now,  does  not  this  tend  to  sub 
vert  all  belief  in  the  utility  of  teaching 
the  Christian  religion  to  youth  at  all? 
Certainly,  it  is  a  broad  and  bold  denial 
of  such  utility.  To  say  that  the  evil  re 
sulting  to  youth  from  the  differences  of 
sects  and  creeds  overbalances  all  the 
benefits  which  the  best  education  can 
give  them,  what  is  this  but  to  say  that 
the  branches  of  the  tree  of  religious 
knowledge  are  so  twisted,  and  twined, 
and  commingled,  and  all  run  so  much 
into  and  over  each  other,  that  there  is 


therefore  no  remedy  but  to  lay  the  axe 
at  the  root  of  the  tree  itself?  It  means 
that,  ancl  nothing  less  !  Now,  if  there 
be  any  thing  more  derogatory  to  the 
Christian  religion  than  this,  I  should 
like  to  know  what  it  is.  In  all  this  we 
see  the  attack  upon  religion  itself,  made 
on  its  ministers,  its  institutions,  and  its 
diversities.  And  that  is  the  objection 
urged  by  all  the  lower  and  more  vul 
gar  schools  of  infidelity  throughout  the 
world.  In  all  these  schools,  called 
schools  of  Rationalism  in  Germany, 
Socialism  in  England,  and  by  various 
other  names  in  various  countries  which 
they  infest,  this  is  the  universal  cant. 
The  first  step  of  all  these  philosophical 
moralists  and  regenerators  of  the  human 
race  is  to  attack  the  agency  through 
which  religion  and  Christianity  are  ad 
ministered  to  man.  But  in  this  there  is 
nothing  new  or  original.  We  find  the 
same  mode  of  attack  and  remark  in 
Paine's  "Age  of  Reason."  At  page 
336  he  says :  "  The  Bramin,  the  follower 
of  Zoroaster,  the  Jew,  the  Mahometan, 
the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Greek  Church, 
the  Protestant  Church,  split  into  sev 
eral  hundred  contradictory  sectaries, 
preaching,  in  some  instances,  damna 
tion  against  each  other,  all  cry  out, 
"  Our  holy  religion! '  ' 

We  find  the  same  view  in  Volney's 
"Ruins  of  Empires."  Mr.  Volney  ar 
rays  in  a  sort  of  semicircle  the  different 
and  conflicting  religions  of  the  world. 
"And  first,"  says  he,  "surrounded  by 
a  group  in  various  fantastic  dresses,  that 
confused  mixture  of  violet,  red,  white, 
black,  and  speckled  garments,  with 
heads  shaved,  with  tonsures,  or  with 
short  hairs,  with  red  hats,  square  bon 
nets,  pointed  mitres,  or  long  beards,  is 
the  standard  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  On 
his  right  you  see  the  Greek  Pontiff,  and 
on  the  left  are  the  standards  of  two  re 
cent  chiefs  (Luther  and  Calvin),  who, 
shaking  off  a  yoke  that  had  become  ty 
rannical,  had  raised  altar  against  altar  in 
their  reform,  and  wrested  half  of  Europe 
from  the  Pope.  Behind  these  are  the 
subaltern  sects,  subdivided  from  the 
principal  divisions.  The  Nestorians, 
Eutychians,  Jacobites,  Iconoclasts,  Ana- 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF   THE   YOUNG. 


521 


baptists,  Presbyterians,  Wickliffites,  Osi- 
andrians,  Manicheans,  Pietists,  Adam 
ites,  the  Contemplatives,  the  Quakers, 
the  Weepers,  and  a  hundred  others,  all 
of  distinct  parties,  persecuting  when 
strong,  tolerant  when  weak,  hating  each 
other  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  peace, 
forming  such  an  exclusive  heaven  in  a 
religion  of  universal  charity,  damning 
each  other  to  pains  without  end  in  a 
future  state,  and  realizing  in  this  world 
the  imaginary  hell  of  the  other." 

Can  it  be  doubted  for  an  instant  that 
sentiments  like  these  are  derogatory  to 
the  Christian  religion?  And  yet  on 
grounds  and  reasons  exactly,  these,  not 
like  these,  but  EXACTLY  these,  Mr.  Gi- 
rard  founds  his  excuse  for  excluding 
Christianity  and  its  ministers  from  his 
school.  He  is  a  tame  copyist,  and  has 
only  raised  marble  walls  to  perpetuate 
and  disseminate  the  principles  of  Paine 
and  of  Volney.  It  has  been  said  that 
Mr.  Girard  was  in  a  difficulty ;  that  he 
was  the  judge  and  disposer  of  his  own 
property.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
his  difficulties.  It  has  been  said  that  he 
must  have  done  as  he  did  do,  because 
there  could  be  no  agreement  otherwise. 
Agreement?  among  whom?  about  what? 
He  was  at  liberty  to  do  what  he  pleased 
with  his  own.  He  had  to  consult  no 
one  as  to  what  he  should  do  in  the  mat 
ter.  And  if  he  had  wished  to  establish 
such  a  charity  as  might  obtain  the  es 
pecial  favor  of  the  courts  of  law,  he  had 
only  to  frame  it  on  principles  not  hos 
tile  to  the  religion  of  the  country. 

But  the  learned  gentleman  went  even 
further  than  this,  and  to  an  extent  that 
I  regretted;  he  said  that  there  was  as 
much  dispute  about  the  Bible  as  about 
any  thing  else  in  the  world.  No,  thank 
God,  that  is  not  the  case ! 

MR.  BINNEY.  The  disputes  about  the 
meaning  of  words  and  passages;  you  will 
admit  that? 

Well,  there  is  a  dispute  about  the 
translation  of  certain  words ;  but  if  this 
be  true,  there  is  just  as  much  dispute 
about  it  out  of  Mr.  Girard's  institution 
as  there  would  be  in  it.  And  if  this 
plan  is  to  be  advocated  and  sustained, 


why  does  not  every  man  keep  his  chil 
dren  from  attending  all  places  of  public 
worship  until  they  are  over  eighteen 
years  of  age?  He  says  that  a  prudent 
parent  keeps  his  child  from  the  influence 
of  sectarian  doctrines,  by  which  I  sup 
pose  him  to  mean  those  tenets  that  are 
opposed  to  his  own.  Well,  I  do  not 
know  but  what  that  plan  is  as  likely  to 
make  bigots  as  it  is  to  make  any  thing 
else.  I  grant  that  the  mind  of  youth 
should  be  kept  pliant,  and  free  from  all 
undue  and  erroneous  influences ;  that  it 
should  have  as  much  play  as  is  consist 
ent  with  prudence;  but  put  it  where  it 
can  obtain  the  elementary  principles  of 
religious  truth;  at  any  rate,  those  broad 
and  general  precepts  and  principles 
which  are  admitted  by  all  Christians. 
But  here  in  this  scheme  of  Mr.  Girard, 
all  sects  and  all  creeds  are  denounced. 
And  would  not  a  prudent  father  rather 
send  his  child  where  he  could  get  in 
struction  under  any  form  of  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  than  where  he  could  get 
none  at  all?  There  are  many  instances 
of  institutions,  professing  one  leading 
creed,  educating  youths  of  different  sects. 
The  Baptist  college  in  Rhode  Island  re 
ceives  and  educates  youths  of  all  relig 
ious  sects  and  all  beliefs.  The  colleges 
all  over  New  England  differ  in  certain 
minor  points  of  belief,  and  yet  that  is 
held  to  be  no  ground  for  excluding  youth 
with  other  forms  of  belief,  and  other  re 
ligious  views  and  sentiments. 

But  this  objection  to  the  multitude 
and  differences  of  sects  is  but  the  old 
story,  the  old  infidel  argument.  It  is 
notorious  that  there  are  certain  great 
religious  truths  which  are  admitted  and 
believed  by  all  Christians.  All  believe 
in  the  existence  of  a  God.  All  believe 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  All  be 
lieve  in  the  responsibility,  in  another 
world,  for  our  conduct  in  this.  All  be 
lieve  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  New 
Testament.  Dr.  Paley  says  that  a  single 
word  from  the  New  Testament  shuts  up 
the  mouth  of  human  questioning,  and 
excludes  all  human  reasoning.  And 
cannot  all  these  great  truths  be  taught  to 
children  without  their  minds  being  per 
plexed  with  clashing  doctrines  and  sec- 


522 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


tarian    controversies?      Most    certainly 
they  can. 

And,  to  compare  secular  with  relig 
ious  matters,  what  would  become  of  the 
organization  of  society,  what  would  be 
come  of  man  as  a  social  being,  in  con 
nection  with  the  social  system,  if  we 
applied  this  mode  of  reasoning  to  him 
in  his  social  relations?  We  have  a  con 
stitutional  government,  about  the  pow 
ers,  and  limitations,  and  uses  of  which 
there  is  a  vast  amount  of  differences  of 
belief.  Your  honors  have  a  body  of 
laws,  now  before  you,  in  relation  to 
which  differences  of  opinion,  almost  in 
numerable,  are  daily  spread  before  the 
courts ;  in  all  these  we  see  clashing  doc 
trines  and  opinions  advanced  daily,  to 
as  great  an  extent  as  in  the  religious 
world. 

Apply  the  reasoning  advanced  by  Mr. 
Girard  to  human  institutions,  and  you 
will  tear  them  all  up  by  the  root ;  as  you 
would  inevitably  tear  all  divine  institu 
tions  up  by  the  root,  if  such  reasoning 
is  to  prevail.  At  the  meeting  of  the  first 
Congress  there  was  a  doubt  in  the  minds 
of  many  of  the  propriety  of  opening  the 
session  with  prayer ;  and  the  reason  as 
signed  was,  as  here,  the  great  diversity 
of  opinion  and  religious  belief.  At 
length  Mr.  Samuel  Adams,  with  his 
gray  hairs  hanging  about  his  shoulders, 
and  with  an  impressive  venerableness 
now  seldom  to  be  met  with,  (I  suppose 
owing  to  the  difference  of  habits,)  rose 
in  that  assembly,  and,  with  the  air  of  a 
perfect  Puritan,  said  that  it  did  not  be 
come  men,  professing  to  be  Christian 
men,  who  had  come  together  for  solemn 
deliberation  in  the  hour  of  their  extrem 
ity,  to  say  that  there  was  so  wide  a 
difference  in  their  religious  belief,  that 
they  could  not,  as  one  man,  bow  the 
knee  in  prayer  to  the  Almighty,  whose 
advice  and  assistance  they  hoped  to  ob 
tain.  Independent  as  he  was,  and  an 
enemy  to  all  prelacy  as  he  was  known  to 
be,  he  moved  that  the  llev.  Mr.  Duche, 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  should  address 
the  Throne  of  Grace  in  prayer.  And 
John  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  his  wife, 
says  that  he  never  saw  a  more  moving 
spectacle.  Mr.  Duche  read  the  Episco 


pal  service  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  then,  as  if  moved  by  the  occasion ,  he 
broke  oift  into  extemporaneous  prayer. 
And  those  men,  who  were  then  about  to 
resort  to  force  to  obtain  their  rights, 
were  moved  to  tears ;  and  floods  of  tears, 
Mr.  Adams  says,  ran  down  the  cheeks 
of  the  pacific  Quakers  who  formed  part 
of  that  most  interesting  assembly.  De 
pend  upon  it,  where  there  is  a  spirit  of 
Christianity,  there  is  a  spirit  which 
rises  above  forms,  above  ceremonies,  in 
dependent  of  sect  or  creed,  and  the  con 
troversies  of  clashing  doctrines. 

The  consolations  of  religion  can  never 
be  administered  to  any  of  these  sick  and 
dying  children  in  this  college.  It  is  said, 
indeed,  that  a  poor,  dying  child  can  be 
carried  out  beyond  the  walls  of  the 
school.  Pie  can  be  carried  out  to  a  hos 
telry,  or  hovel,  and  there  receive  those 
rites  of  the  Christian  religion  which  can 
not  be  performed  within  those  walls, 
even  in  his  dying  hour !  Is  not  all  this 
shocking?  What  a  stricture  is  it  upon 
this  whole  scheme !  Wliat  an  utter  con 
demnation!  A  dying  youth  cannot  re 
ceive  religious  solace  within  this  semi 
nary  of  learning! 

But,  it  is  asked,  what  could  Mr.  Gi 
rard  have  done?  He  could  have  done,  as 
has  been  done  in  Lombardy  by  the  Em 
peror  of  Austria,  as  my  learned  friend 
has  informed  us,  where,  on  a  large  scale, 
the  principle  is  established  of  teaching 
the  elementary  principles  of  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  of  enforcing  human  duties 
by  divine  obligations,  and  carefully  ab 
staining  in  all  cases  from  interfering 
with  sects  or  the  inculcation  of  sectarian 
doctrines.  How  have  they  done  in  the 
schools  of  New  England?  There,  as  far 
as  I  am  acquainted  with  them,  the  great 
elements  of  Christian  truth  are  taught 
in  every  school.  The  Scriptures  are 
read,  their  authority  taught  and  en 
forced,  their  evidences  explained,  and 
prayers  usually  offered. 

The  truth  is,  that  those  who  really 
value  Christianity,  and  believe  in  its  im 
portance,  not  only  to  the  spiritual  wel 
fare  of  man,  but  to  the  safety  and  pros 
perity  of  human  society,  rejoice  that  in 
its  revelations  and  its  teachings  there  is 


AND   THE  RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION  OF   THE   YOUNG. 


523 


so  much  which  mounts  above  contro 
versy,  and  stands  on  universal  acknowl 
edgment.  While  many  things  about  it 
are  disputed  or  are  dark,  they  still  plainly 
see  its  foundation,  and  its  main  pillars; 
and  they  behold  in  it  a  sacred  structure, 
rising  up  to  the  heavens.  They  wish 
its  general  principles,  and  all  its  great 
truths,  to  be  spread  over  the  whole  earth. 
But  those  who  do  not  value  Christianity, 
nor  believe  in  its  importance  to  society 
or  individuals,  cavil  about  sects  and 
schisms,  and  ring  monotonous  changes 
upon  the  shallow  and  so  often  refuted 
objections  founded  on  alleged  variety  of 
discordant  creeds  and  clashing  doctrines. 
I  shall  close  this  part  of  my  argument 
by  reading  extracts  from  an  English 
writer,  one  of  the  most  profound  think 
ers  of  the  age,  a  friend  of  reformation 
in  the  government  and  laws,  John  Fos 
ter,  the  friend  and  associate  of  Robert 
Hall.  Looking  forward  to  the  abolition 
of  the  present  dynasties  of  the  Old 
World,  and  desirous  to  see  how  the 
order  and  welfare  of  society  is  to  be  pre 
served  in  the  absence  of  present  conser 
vative  principles,  he  says  :  — 

"  Undoubtedly  the  zealous  friends  of  pop 
ular  education  account  knowledge  valuable 
absolutely,  as  being  the  apprehension  of 
things  as  they  are;  a  prevention  of  delu 
sions  ;  and  so  far  a  fitness  for  right  voli 
tions.  But  they  consider  religion  (besides 
being  itself  the  primary  and  infinitely  the 
most  important  part  of  knowledge)  as  a 
principle  indispensable  for  securing  the  full 
benefit  of  all  the  rest.  It  is  desired,  and 
endeavored,  that  the  understandings  of 
these  opening  minds  may  be  taken  posses 
sion  of  by  just  and  solemn  ideas  of  their 
relation  to  the  Eternal  Almighty  Being; 
that  they  may  be  taught  to  apprehend  it  as 
an  awful  reality,  that  they  are  perpetually 
under  his  inspection ;  and,  as  a  certainty, 
that  they  must  at  length  appear  before  him 
in  judgment,  and  find  in  another  life  the 
consequences  of  what  they  are  in  spirit  and 
conduct  here.  It  is  to  be  impressed  on 
them,  that  his  will  is  the  supreme  law,  that 
his  declarations  are  the  most  momentous 
truth  known  on  earth,  and  his  favor  and 
condemnation  the  greatest  good  and  evil. 
Under  an  ascendency  of  this  divine  wisdom 
it  is,  that  their  discipline  in  any  other 
knowledge  is  designed  to  be  conducted ;  so 


that  nothing  in  the  mode  of  their  instruc 
tion  may  have  a  tendency  contrary  to  it, 
and  every  thing  be  taught  in  a  manner  rec 
ognizing  the  relation  with  it,  as  far  as 
shall  consist  with  a  natural,  unforced  way 
of  keeping  the  relation  in  view.  Thus  it  is 
sought  to  be  secured,  that,  as  the  pupil's 
mind  grows  stronger,  and  multiplies  its  re 
sources,  and  he  therefore  has  necessarily 
more  power  and  means  for  what  is  wrong, 
there  may  be  luminously  presented  to  him, 
as  if  celestial  eyes  visibly  beamed  upon 
him,  the  most  solemn  ideas  that  can  enforce 
what  is  right. 

"  Such  is  the  discipline  meditated  for 
preparing  the  subordinate  classes  to  pursue 
their  individual  welfare,  and  act  their  part 
as  members  of  the  community.  .  .  . 

"  All  this  is  to  be  taught,  in  many  in 
stances  directly,  in  others  by  reference  for 
confirmation,  from  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
from  which  authority  will  also  be  impressed, 
all  the  while,  the  principles  of  religion. 
And  religion,  while  its  grand  concern  is  with 
the  state  of  the  soul  towards  God  and  eternal 
interests,  yet  takes  every  principle  and  rule 
of  morals  under  its  peremptory  sanction  ; 
making  the  primary  obligation  and  responsi 
bility  be  towards  God,  of  every  thing  that 
is  a  duty  with  respect  to  men.  So  that, 
with  the  subjects  of  this  education,  the 
sense  of  propriety  shall  be  conscience;  the 
consideration  of  how  they  ought  to  be  regu 
lated  in  their  conduct  as  a  part  of  the  com 
munity  shall  be  the  recollection  that  their 
Master  in  heaven  dictates  the  laws  of  that 
conduct,  and  will  judicially  hold  them  ame 
nable  for  every  part  of  it. 

"  And  is  not  a  discipline  thus  addressed 
to  the  purpose  of  fixing  religious  principles 
in  ascendency,  as  far  as  that  difficult  object 
is  within  the  power  of  discipline,  and  of  in 
fusing  a  salutary  tincture  of  them  into 
whatever  else  is  taught,  the  right  way  to 
bring  up  citizens  faithful  to  all  that  de 
serves  fidelity  in  the  social  compact  ?  .  .  . 

"  Lay  hold  on  the  myriads  of  juvenile 
spirits  before  they  have  time  to  grow  up, 
through  ignorance,  into  a  reckless  hostility 
to  social  order;  train  them  to  sense  and 
good  morals  ;  inculcate  the  principles  of  re 
ligion,  simply  and  solemnly,  as  religion,  as 
a  thing  directly  of  divine  dictation,  and  not 
as  if  its  authority  were  chiefly  in  virtue  of 
human  institutions ;  let  the  higher  orders, 
generally,  make  it  evident  to  the  multitude 
that  they  are  desirous  to  raise  them  in 
value,  and  promote  their  happiness ;  and 
then,  whatever  the  demands  of  the  people  as 


524 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


a  body,  thus  improving  in  understanding 
and  sense  of  justice,  shall  come  to  be,  and 
whatever  modification  their  preponderance 
may  ultimately  enforce  on  the  great  social 
arrangements,  it  will  be  infallibly  certain 
that  there  never  can  be  a  love  of  disorder, 
an  insolent  anarchy,  a  prevailing  spirit  of 
revenge  and  devastation.  Such  a  conduct 
of  the  ascendent  ranks  would,  in  this  na 
tion  at  least,  secure  that,  as  long  as  the 
world  lasts,  there  never  would  be  any 
formidable  commotion,  or  violent  sudden 
changes.  All  those  modifications  of  the 
national  economy  to  which  an  improving 
people  would  aspire,  and  would  deserve  to 
obtain,  would  be  gradually  accomplished,  in 
a  manner  by  which  no  party  would  be 
wronged,  and  all  would  be  the  happier."  l 

I  not  only  read  this  for  the  excellence 
of  its  sentiments  and  their  application 
to  the  subject,  but  because  they  are  the 
results  of  the  profound  meditations  of  a 
man  who  is  dealing  with  popular  igno 
rance.  Desirous  of,  and  expecting,  a 
great  change  in  the  social  system  of  the 
Old  World,  he  is  anxious  to  discover 
that  conservative  principle  by  which  so 
ciety  can  be  kept  together  when  crowns 
and  mitres  shall  have  no  more  influence. 
And  he  says  that  the  only  conservative 
principle  must  be,  and  is,  RELIGION! 
the  authority  of  God !  his  revealed  will ! 
and  the  influence  of  the  teaching  of  the 
ministers  of  Christianity ! 

Mr.  Webster  here  stated  that  he  would, 
on  Monday,  bring  forward  certain  refer 
ences  and  legal  points  bearing  on  this  view 
of  the  case. 

The  court  then  adjourned. 

SECOND    DAY. 

The  seven  judges  all  took  their  seats  at 
eleven  o'clock,  and  the  court  was  opened. 

Mr.  Binney  observed  to  the  court,  that 
he  had  omitted  to  notice,  in  his  argument, 
that,  in  regard  to  the  statutes  of  Uniformity 
and  Toleration  in  England,  whilst  the  Jew 
ish  Talmuds  for  the  propagation  of  Juda 
ism  alone  were  not  sustained  by  those  stat 
utes,  yet  the  Jewish  Talmuds  for  the  main 
tenance  of  the  poor  were  sustained  thereby. 
And  the  decisions  show  that,  where  a  gift 
had  for  its  object  the  maintenance  and  edu 
cation  of  poor  Jewish  children,  the  statutes 

1  Foster's  Essay  on  the  Evils  of  Popular 
Ignorance,  Section  IV. 


sustained  the  devise.  In  proof  of  this  he 
quoted  1  Ambler,  by  Blunt,  p.  228,  case  of 
De  Costaf  &c.  Also,  the  case  of  Jacobs  v. 
Gomperte,  in  the  notes.  Also,  in  the  notes, 
2  Swanston,  p.  487,  same  case  of  De  Costa, 
&c.  Also,  7  Vesey,  p.  423,  case  of  Mo  Catto 
v.  Lucardo.  Also,  Sheppard,  p.  107,  and 
Boyle,  p.  43. 

Another  case  was  that  of  a  bequest  given 
to  an  object  abroad,  and  in  the  decision  the 
Master  of  the  Rolls  considered  that  relig 
ious  instruction  was  not  a  necessary  part  of 
education.  See,  also,  the  case  of  The  Attor 
ney-General  v.  The  Dean  and  Canons  of 
Christ  Church,  Jacobs,  p.  485. 

Mr.  Binney  then  quoted  from  Noah  Web 
ster  the  definition  of  the  word  "  tenets,"  to 
show  that  Mr.  Webster  did  not  give  the 
right  definition  when  he  said  that  "  tenets  " 
meant  "  religion." 

Mr.  Webster  the«  rose  and  said :  — 

The  arguments  of  my  learned  friend, 
may  it  please  your  honors,  in  relation  to 
the  Jewish  laws  as  tolerated  by  the 
statutes,  go  to  maintain  my  very  propo 
sition  ;  that  is,  that  no  school  for  the  in 
struction  of  youth  in  any  system  which 
is  in  any  way  derogatory  to  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  or  for  the  teaching  of  doc 
trines  that  are  in  any  way  contrary  to 
the  Christian  religion,  is,  or  ever  was, 
regarded  as  a  charity  by  the  courts.  It 
is  true  that  the  statutes  of  Toleration  re 
garded  a  devise  for  the  maintenance  of 
poor  Jewish  children,  to  give  them  food 
and  raiment  and  lodging,  as  a  charity. 
But  a  devise  for  the  teaching  of  the  Jew 
ish  religion  to  poor  children,  that  should 
come  into  the  Court  of  Chancery,  would 
not  be  regarded  as  a  charity,  or  entitled 
to  any  peculiar  privileges  from  the  court. 

When  I  stated  to  your  honors,  in  the 
course  of  my  argument  on  Saturday,  that 
all  denominations  of  Christians  had  some 
mode  or  provision  for  the  appointment  of 
teachers  of  Christianity  amongst  them, 
I  meant  to  have  said  something  about 
the  Quakers.  Although  we  know  that 
the  teachers  among  them  come  into  their 
office  in  a  somewhat  peculiar  manner, 
yet  there  are  preachers  and  teachers  of 
Christianity  provided  in  that  peculiar 
body,  notwithstanding  its  objection  to 
the  mode  of  appointing  teachers  and 
preachers  by  other  Christian  sects.  The 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF  THE  YOUNG. 


525 


place  or  character  of  a  Quaker  preacher 
is  an  office  and  appointment  as  well 
known  as  that  of  a  preacher  among  any 
other  denomination  of  Christians. 

I  have  heretofore  argued  to  show  that 
the  Christian  religion,  its  general  prin 
ciples,  must  ever  be  regarded  among  us 
as  the  foundation  of  civil  society ;  and  I 
have  thus  far  confined  my  remarks  to 
the  tendency  and  effect  of  the  scheme  of 
Mr.  Girard  (if  carried  out)  upon  the 
Christian  religion.  But  I  will  go  far 
ther,  and  say  that  this  school,  this  scheme 
or  system,  in  its  tendencies  and  effects, 
is  opposed  to  all  religions,  of  every  kind. 
I  will  not  now  enter  into  a  controversy 
with  my  learned  friend  about  the  word 
"tenets."  whether  it  signify  opinions 
or  dogmas,  or  whatever  you  please.  Re 
ligious  tenets,  I  take  it,  and  I  suppose 
it  will  be  generally  conceded,  mean  re 
ligious  opinions ;  and  if  a  youth  has  ar 
rived  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  and  has 
no  religious  tenets,  it  is  very  plain  that 
he  has  no  religion.  I  do  not  care 
whether  you  call  them  dogmas,  tenets, 
or  opinions.  If  the  youth  does  not  en 
tertain  dogmas,  tenets,  or  opinions,  or 
opinions,  tenets,  or  dogmas,  on  relig 
ious  subjects,  then  he  has  no  religion  at 
all.  And  this  strikes  at  a  broader  prin 
ciple  than  when  you  merely  look  at  this 
school  in  its  effect  upon  Christianity 
alone.  We  will  suppose  the  case  of  a 
youth  of  eighteen,  who  has  just  left  this 
school,  and  has  gone  through  an  educa 
tion  of  philosophical  morality,  precisely 
in  accordance  with  the  views  and  ex 
pressed  wishes  of  the  donor.  He  comes 
then  into  the  world  to  choose  his  relig 
ious  tenets.  The  very  next  day,  per 
haps,  after  leaving  school,  he  comes  into 
a  court  of  law  to  give  testimony  as  a 
witness.  Sir,  I  protest  that  by  such  a 
system  he  would  be  disfranchised.  He 
is  asked,  "What  is  your  religion?" 
His  reply  is,  "  O,  I  have  not  yet  chosen 
any;  I  am  going  to  look  round,  and  see 
which  suits  me  best."  He  is  asked, 
"Are  you  a  Christian?"  He  replies, 
"  That  involves  religious  tenets,  and  as 
yet  I  have  not  been  allowed  to  entertain 
any."  Again,  "Do  you  believe  in  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punish 


ments? "  And  he  answers,  "That  in 
volves  sectarian  controversies,  which 
have  carefully  been  kept  from  me." 
"  Do  you  believe  in  the  existence  of  a 
God?"  He  answers,  that  there  are 
clashing  doctrines  involved  in  these 
things,  which  he  has  been  taught  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with ;  that  the  belief  in 
the  existence  of  a  God,  being  one  of  the 
first  questions  in  religion,  he  is  shortly 
about  to  think  of  that  proposition.  Why, 
Sir,  it  is  vain  to  talk  about  the  destruc 
tive  tendency  of  such  a  system ;  to  argue 
upon  it  is  to  insult  the  understanding  of 
every  man;  it  is  mere,  sheer,  low,  ribald, 
vulgar  deism  and  infidelity  ! l  It  opposes 
all  that  is  in  heaven,  and  all  on  earth 
that  is  worth  being  on  earth.  It  de 
stroys  the  connecting  link  between  the 
creature  and  the  Creator ;  it  opposes  that 
great  system  of  universal  benevolence 
and  goodness  that  binds  man  to  his 
Maker.  No  religion  till  he  is  eighteen ! 
What  would  be  the  condition  of  all  our 
families,  of  all  our  children,  if  religious 
fathers  and  religious  mothers  were  to 
teach  their  sons  and  daughters  no  re 
ligious  tenets  till  they  were  eighteen  ? 
What  wTould  become  of  their  morals, 
their  character,  their  purity  of  heart  and 
life,  their  hope  for  time  and  eternity  ? 
What  would  become  of  all  those  thou 
sand  ties  of  sweetness,  benevolence,  love, 
and  Christian  feeling,  that  now  render 
our  young  men  and  young  maidens  like 
comely  plants  growing  up  by  a  stream 
let's  side,  —  the  graces  and  the  grace  of 
opening  manhood,  of  blossoming  wo 
manhood  ?  What  would  become  of  all 
that  now  renders  the  social  circle  lovely 
and  beloved  ?  What  would  become  of 
society  itself  ?  How  could  it  exist  ? 
And  is  that  to  be  considered  a  charity 
which  strikes  at  the  root  of  all  this; 
which  subverts  all  the  excellence  and 
the  charms  of  social  life ;  which  tends 
to  destroy  the  very  foundation  and 
frame-work  of  society,  both  in  its 
practices  and  in  its  opinions;  which 
subverts  the  whole  decency,  the  whole 
morality,  as  well  as  the  whole  Christiau- 

1  The  effect  of  this  remark  was  almost  elec 
tric,  and  some  one  in  the  court-room  broke  out 
in  applause. 


526 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


ity  and  government,  of  society  ?     No, 
Sir!  no,  Sir! 

And  here  let  me  turn  to  the  consider 
ation  of  the  question,  What  is  an  oath  ? 
I  do  not  mean  in  the  variety  of  defini 
tions  that  may  be  given  to  it  as  it  ex 
isted  and  was  practised  in  the  time  of 
the  Romans,  but  an  oath  as  it  exists  at 
present  in  our  courts  of  law;  as  it  is 
founded  on  a  degree  of  consciousness 
that  there  is  a  Power  above  us  that  will 
reward  our  virtues  and  punish  our  vices. 
We  all  know  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
English  law  is,  that  in  the  case  of  every 
person  who  enters  court  as  a  witness,  be 
he  Christian  or  Hindoo,  there  must  be  a 
firm  conviction  on  his  mind  that  false 
hood  or  perjury  will  be  punished,  either 
in  this  world  or  the  next,  or  he  cannot 
be.  admitted  as  a  witness.  If  he  has  not 
this  belief,  he  is  disfranchised.  In  proof 
of  this,  I  refer  your  honors  to  the  great 
case  of  Ormichund  against  Barker,  in 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Willes's  report.  There 
this  doctrine  is  clearly  laid  down.  But 
in  no  case  is  a  man  allowed  to  be  a  wit 
ness  that  has  no  belief  in  future  rewards 
and  punishments  for  virtues  or  vices,  nor 
ought  he  to  be.  We  hold  life,  liberty, 
and  property  in  this  country  upon  a  sys 
tem  of  oaths ;  oaths  founded  on  a  relig 
ious  belief  of  some  sort.  And  that  sys 
tem  which  would  strike  away  the  great 
substratum,  destroy  the  safe  possession 
of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  destroy  all 
the  institutions  of  civil  society,  cannot 
and  will  not  be  considered  as  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  a  court  of  equity.  It 
has  been  said,  on  the  other  side,  that 
there  was  no  teaching  against  religion  or 
Christianity  in  this  system.  I  deny  it. 
The  whole  testament  is  one  bold  procla 
mation  against  Christianity  and  religion 
of  every  creed.  The  children  are  to  be 
brought  up  in  the  principles  declared  in 
that  testament.  They  are  to  learn  to  be 
suspicious  of  Christianity  and  religion; 
to  keep  clear  of  it,  that  their  youthful 
heart  may  not  become  susceptible  of  the 
influences  of  Christianity  or  religion  in 
the  slightest  degree.  They  are  to  be 
told  and  taught  that  religion  is  not  a 
matter  for  the  heart  or  conscience,  but 
for  the  decision  of  the  cool  judgment  of 


mature  years ;  that  at  that  period  when 
the  whole  Christian  world  deem  it  most 
desirable  to  instil  the  chastening  influ 
ences  of  Christianity  into  the  tender  and 
comparatively  pure  mind  and  heart  of 
the  child,  ere  the  cares  and  corruptions 
of  the  world  have  reached  and  seared 
it,  —  at  that  period  the  child  in  this  col 
lege  is  to  be  carefully  excluded  there 
from,  and  to  be  told  that  its  influence 
is  pernicious  and  dangerous  in  the  ex 
treme.  AVhy,  the  whole  system  is  a  con 
stant  preaching  against  Christianity  and 
against  religion,  and  I  insist  that  there 
is  no  charity,  and  can  be  no  charity,  in 
that  system  of  instruction  from  which 
Christianity  is  excluded.  I  perfectly 
agree  with  what  my  learned  friend  says 
in  regard  to  the  monasteries  of  the  Old 
World,  as  seats  of  learning  to  which 
we  are  all  indebted  at  the  present  day. 
Much  of  our  learning,  almost  all  of  our 
early  histories,  and  a  vast  amount  of 
literary  treasure,  were  preserved  therein 
and  emanated  therefrom.  But  we  all 
know,  that  although  these  were  emphat 
ically  receptacles  for  literature  of  the 
highest  order,  yet  they  were  always  con 
nected  with  Christianity,  and  were  al 
ways  regarded  and  conducted  as  relig 
ious  establishments. 

Going  back  as  far  as  the  statutes  of 
Henry  the  Fourth,  as  early  as  1402,1  in 
the  act  respecting  charities,  we  find  that 
one  hundred  years  before  the  Reforma 
tion,  in  Catholic  times,  in  the  establish 
ment  of  every  charitable  institution, 
there  was  to  be  proper  provision  for  re 
ligious  instruction.  Again,  after  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  when  those 
monastic  institutions  were  abolished,  in 
the  1st  Edw.  VI.  ch.  14,  we  find  certain 
chantries  abolished,  and  their  funds  ap 
propriated  to  the  instruction  of  youth  in 
the  grammar  schools  founded  in  that 
reign,  which  Lord  Eldon  says  extended 
all  over  the  kingdom.  In  all  these  we 
find  provision  for  religious  instruction, 
the  dispensation  of  the  same  being  by  a 
teacher  or  preacher.  In  2  Swanston, 
p.  529,  the  case  of  the  Bedford  Charity, 
Lord  Eldon  gives  a  long  opinion,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  says,  that  in  these 
i  2  Pickering,  p.  433. 


AND  THE  RELIGIOUS  INSTRUCTION  OF  THE  YOUNG. 


527 


schools  care  is  taken  to  educate  youth  in 
the  Christian  religion,  and  in  all  of  them 
the  New  Testament  is  taught,  both  in 
Latin  and  Greek.  Here,  then,  we  find 
that  the  great  and  leading  provision, 
both  before  and  after  the  Reformation, 
was  to  connect  the  knowledge  of  Chris 
tianity  with  human  letters.  And  it  wTill 
be  always  found  that  a  school  for  in 
struction  of  youth,  to  possess  the  privi 
leges  of  a  charity,  must  be  provided  with 
religious  instruction. 

For  the  decision,  that  the  essentials  of 
Christianity  are  part  of  the  common  law 
of  the  land,  I  refer  your  honors  to  1  Ver- 
non,  p.  293,  where  Lord  Hale,  who  can 
not  be  suspected  of  any  bigotry  on  this 
subject,  says,  that  to  decry  religion,  and 
call  it  a  cheat,  tends  to  destroy  all  re 
ligion  ;  and  he  also  declares  Christianity 
to  be  part  of  the  common  law  of  the 
land.  Mr.  N.  Dane,  in  his  Abridgment, 
ch.  219,  recognizes  the  same  principle. 
In  2  Strange,  p.  834,  case  of  The  King  v. 
Wilson,  the  judges  would  not  suffer  it  to 
be  debated  that  writing  against  religion 
generally  is  an  offence  at  common  law. 
They  laid  stress  upon  the  word  ' '  gener 
ally,"  because  there  might  arise  differ 
ences  of  opinion  between  religious  writ 
ers  on  points  of  doctrine,  and  so  forth. 
So  in  Taylor's  case,  3  Merivale,  p.  405, 
by  the  High  Court  of  Chancery,  these 
doctrines  were  recognized  and  main 
tained.  The  same  doctrine  is  laid  down 
in  2  Burn's  Ecclesiastical  Law,  p.  95, 
Evans  v.  The  Chamberlain  of  London; 
and  in  2  Russell,  p.  501,  The  Attorney- 
General  v.  The  Earl  of  Mansfield. 

There  is  a  case  of  recent  date,  which, 
if  the  English  law  is  to  prevail,  would 
seem  conclusive  as  to  the  character  of 
this  devise.  It  is  the  case  of  The  Attor 
ney-General  v.  Cullum,  1  Younge  and 
Collyer's  Reports,  p.  411.  The  case  was 
heard  and  decided  in  1842,  by  Sir  Knight 
Bruce,  Vice-Chancellor.  The  reporter's 
abstract,  or  summary,  of  the  decision  is 
this:  "COURTS  OF  EQUITY,  IN  THIS 

COUNTRY,  WILL  NOT  SANCTION  ANY 
SYSTEM  OF  EDUCATION  IN  WHICH  RE 
LIGION  IS  NOT  INCLUDED." 

The  charity  in  question  in  that  case 
was  established  in  the  reign  of  Edward 


the  Fourth,  for  the  benefit  of  the  com 
munity  and  poor  inhabitants  of  the  town 
of  Bury  St.  Edmunds.  The  objects  of 
the  charity  were  various:  for  relief  of 
prisoners,  educating  and  instructing 
poor  people,  for  food  and  raiment  for 
the  aged  and  impotent,  and  others  of 
the  same  kind.  There  were  uses,  also, 
now  deemed  superstitious,  such  as  pray 
ing  for  the  souls  of  the  dead.  In  this, 
and  in  other  respects,  the  charity  re 
quired  revision,  to  suit  it  to  the  habits 
and  requirements  of  modern  times;  and 
a  scheme  was  accordingly  set  forth  for 
such  revision  by  the  master,  under  the 
direction  of  the  court.  By  this  scheme 
there  were  to  be  schools,  and  these 
schools  were  to  be  closed  on  Sundays, 
although  the  Scriptures  were  to  be  read 
daily  on  other  days.  This  was  objected 
to,  and  it  was  insisted,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  masters  and  mistresses 
of  the  schools  should  be  members  of  the 
Church  of  England;  that  they  should, 
on  every  Lord's  day,  give  instruction 
in  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  to  those 
children  whose  parents  might  so  desire ; 
but  that  all  the  scholars  should  be  re 
quired  to  attend  public  worship  every 
Lord's  day  in  the  parish  church,  or  other 
place  of  worship,  according  to  their  respec 
tive  creeds. 

The  Vice-Chancellor  said,  that  the 
term  "  education  "  was  properly  under 
stood,  by  all  the  parties,  to  comprehend 
religious  instruction ;  that  the  objection 
to  the  scheme  proposed  by  the  master 
was  not  that  it  did  not  provide  for  re 
ligious  instruction  according  to  the  doc 
trines  of  the  Church  of  England,  but 
that  it  did  not  provide  for  religious  in 
struction  at  all.  In  the  course  of  the 
hearing,  the  Vice-Chancellor  said,  that 
any  scheme  of  education,  without  relig 
ion,  would  be  worse  than  a  mockery. 
The  parties  afterwards  agreed,  that  the 
masters  and  mistresses  should  be  mem 
bers  of  the  Church  of  England;  that 
every  school  day  the  master  should  give 
religious  instruction,  during  one  hour, 
to  all  the  scholars,  such  religious  instruc 
tion  to  be  confined  to  the  reading  and  ex 
planation  of  the  Scriptures;  that  on  every 
Lord's  day  he  should  give  instruction  in 


528 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


the  liturgy,  catechism,  and  articles  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  that  the 
scholars  should  attend  church  every 
Lord's,  day,  unless  they  were  children  of 
persons  not  in  communion  with  the  Church 
of  England.  In  giving  the  sanction  of 
the  court  to  this  arrangement,  the  Vice- 
Chancellor  said,  that  he  wished  to  have 
it  distinctly  understood  that  the  ground 
on  which  he  had  proceeded  was  not  a 
preference  of  one  form  of  religion  to 
another,  but  the  necessity,  if  the  matter 
was  left  to  him  judicially,  to  adopt  the 
course  of  requiring  the  teachers  to  be 
members  of  the  Church  of  England. 

This  case  clearly  shows,  that,  at  the 
present  day,  a  school,  founded  by  a  char 
ity,  for  the  instruction  of  children,  can 
not  be  sanctioned  by  the  courts  as  a 
charity,  unless  the  scheme  of  education 
includes  religious  instruction.  It  shows, 
too,  that  this  general  requisition  of  the 
law  is  independent  of  a  church  estab 
lishment,  and  that  it  is  not  religion  in 
any  particular  form,  but  religion,  relig 
ious  and  Christian  instruction  in  some 
form,  which  is  held  to  be  indispensable. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  how  a  charity  for 
the  instruction  of  children  would  fare  in 
an  English  court,  the  scheme  of  which 
should  carefully  and  sedulously  exclude 
all  religious  or  Christian  instruction, 
and  profess  to  establish  morals  on  prin 
ciples  no  higher  than  those  of  enlight 
ened  Paganism. 

Enough,  then,  your  honors,  has  been 
said  on  this  point;  and  I  am  willing  that 
inquiry  should  be  prosecuted  to  any  ex 
tent  of  research  to  controvert  this  posi 
tion,  that  a  school  of  education  for  the 
young,  which  rejects  the  Christian  relig 
ion,  cannot  be  sustained  as  a  charity,  so 
as  to  entitle  it  to  come  before  the  courts 
of  equity  for  the  privileges  which  they 
have  power  to  confer  on  charitable  be 
quests. 

Mr.  Webster  then  replied  to  the  remarks 
of  Mr.  Binney,  in  relation  to  the  Liverpool 
Blue  Coat  School,  and  read  from  the  report 
of  Mr.  Bache  on  education  in  Europe,  Mr. 
Bache  having  been  sent  abroad  by  the  city 
of  Philadelphia  to  investigate  this  whole 
matter  of  education. 

If  Mr.  Girard  had  established  such  a 


school  as  that,  it  would  have  been  free 
from  all  those  objections  that  have  been 
raised  against  it.  This  Liverpool  Blue 
Coat  School,  though  too  much  of  a  relig 
ious  party  character,  is  strictly  a  church 
establishment.  It  is  a  school  established 
on  a  peculiar  foundation,  that  of  the 
Madras  system  of  Dr.  Bell.  It  is  a 
monitorial  school;  those  who  are  ad 
vanced  in  learning  are  to  teach  the 
others  in  religion,  as  well  as  secular 
knowledge.  It  is  strictly  a  religious 
school,  and  the  only  objection  is,  that 
in  its  instruction  it  is  too  much  confined 
to  a  particular  sect. 

Mr.  Binney  observed  that  there  was  no 
provision  made  for  clergymen. 

That  is  true,  because  the  scheme  of 
the  school  is  monitorial,  in  which  the 
more  advanced  scholars  instruct  the 
others.  But  religious  instruction  is  am 
ply  and  particularly  provided  for. 

Mr.  Webster  then  referred  to  Shelford, 
p.  105,  and  onward,  under  the  head  "  Jews," 
in  the  fourth  paragraph,  where,  he  stated, 
the  whole  matter,  and  all  the  cases,  as  re 
garded  the  condition  and  position  of  the 
Jews  respecting  various  charities,  were 
given  in  full. 

He  then  referred  to  the  Smithsonian  leg 
acy,  which  had  been  mentioned,  and  which 
he  said  was  no  charity  at  all,  nor  any  thing 
like  a  charity.  It  was  a  gift  to  Congress, 
to  be  disposed  of  as  Congress  saw  fit,  for 
scientific  purposes. 

He  then  replied,  in  a  few  words,  to  the 
arguments  of  Mr.  Binney  in  relation  to  the 
University  of  Virginia;  and  said  that,  al 
though  there  was  no  provision  for  religious 
instruction  in  that  University,  yet  he  sup 
posed  it  would  not  be  contended  for  a  mo 
ment  that  the  University  of  Virginia  was  a 
charity,  or  that  it  came  before  the  courts 
claiming  of  the  law  of  that  State  protection 
as  such.  It  stood  on  its  charter. 

I  repeat  again,  before  closing  this  part 
of  my  argument,  the  proposition,  impor 
tant  as  I  believe  it  to  be,  for  your  hon 
ors'  consideration,  that  the  proposed 
school,  in  its  true  character,  objects, 
and  tendencies,  is  derogatory  to  Chris 
tianity  and  religion.  If  it  be  so,  then  I 
maintain  that  it  cannot  be  considered  a 
charity,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the  just 


AND   THE   RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION  OF  THE   YOUNG. 


529 


protection  and  support  of  a  court  of 
equity.  I  consider  this  the  great  ques 
tion  for  the  consideration  of  this  court. 
I  may  be  excused  for  pressing  it  on  the 
attention  of  your  honors.  It  is  one 
which,  in  its  decision,  is  to  influence  the 
happiness,  the  temporal  and  the  eternal 
welfare,  of  one  hundred  millions  of  hu 
man  beings,  alive  and  to  be  born,  in  this 
land.  Its  decision  will  give  a  hue  to  the 
apparent  character  of  our  institutions; 
it  will  be  a  comment  on  their  spirit  to 
the  whole  Christian  world.  I  again 
press  the  question  to  your  honors  :  Is  a 
clear ,  plain,  positive  system  for  the  instruc 
tion  of  children,  founded  on  clear  and 
plain  objects  of  infidelity,  a  charity  in  the 
eye  of  the  law,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the 
privileges  awarded  to  charities  in  a  court 
of  equity  ?  And  with  this,  I  leave  this 
part  of  the  case. 

THIRD    DAY. 

I  shall  now,  may  it  please  your  hon 
ors,  proceed  to  inquire  whether  there  is, 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  any  set 
tled  public  policy  to  which  this  school,  as 
planned  by  Mr.  Girard  in  his  will,  is  in 
opposition ;  for  it  follows,  that,  if  there 
be  any  settled  public  policy  in  the  laws 
of  Pennsylvania  on  this  subject,  then 
any  school,  or  scheme,  or  system,  which 
tends  to  subvert  this  public  policy,  can 
not  be  entitled  to  the  protection  of  a 
court  of  equity.  It  will  not  be  denied 
that  there  is  a  general  public  policy  in 
that,  as  in  all  States,  drawn  from  its 
history  and  its  laws.  And  it  will  not 
be  denied  that  any  scheme  or  school  of 
education  which  directly  opposes  this  is 
not  to  be  favored  by  the  courts.  Penn 
sylvania  is  a  free  and  independent  State. 
She  has  a  popular  government,  a  sys 
tem  of  trial  by  jury,  of  free  suffrage,  of 
vote  by  ballot,  of  alienability  of  prop 
erty.  All  these  form  part  of  the  general 
public  policy  of  Pennsylvania.  Any 
man  who  shall  go  into  that  State  can 
speak  and  write  as  much  as  he  pleases 
against  a  popular  form  of  government, 
freedom  of  suffrage,  trial  by  jury,  and 
against  any  or  all  of  the  institutions 
just  named;  he  may  decry  civil  liberty, 


and  assert  the  divine  right  of  kings,  and 
still  he  does  nothing  criminal;  but  if, 
to  give  success  to  such  efforts,  special 
power  from  a  court  of  justice  is  required, 
it  will  not  be  granted  to  him.  There  is 
not  one  of  these  features  of  the  general 
public  policy  of  Pennsylvania  against 
which  a  school  might  not  be  established 
and  preachers  and  teachers  employed  to 
teach.  That  might  in  a  certain  sense 
be  considered  a  school  of  education,  but 
it  would  not  be  a  charity.  And  if  Mr. 
Girard,  in  his  lifetime,  had  founded 
schools  and  employed  teachers  to  preach 
and  teach  in  favor  of  infidelity,  or  against 
popular  government,  free  suffrage,  trial 
by  jury,  or  the  alienability  of  property, 
there  was  nothing  to  stop  him  or  prevent 
him  from  so  doing.  But  where  any  one 
or  all  of  these  come  to  be  provided  for  a 
school  or  system  as  a  charity,  and  come 
before  the  courts  for  favor,  then  in  nei 
ther  one,  nor  all,  nor  any,  can  they  be 
favored,  because  they  are  opposed  to  the 
general  public  policy  and  public  law  of 
the  State. 

These  great  principles  have  always 
been  recognized ;  and  they  are  no  more 
part  and  parcel  of  the  public  law  of 
Pennsylvania  than  is  the  Christian  re 
ligion.  We  have  in  the  charter  of 
Pennsylvania,  as  prepared  by  its  great 
founder,  William  Penn,  —  we  have  in  his 
"great  law,"  as  it  was  called,  the  dec 
laration,  that  the  preservation  of  Chris 
tianity  is  one  of  the  great  and  leading 
ends  of  government.  This  is  declared 
in  the  charter  of  the  State.  Then  the 
laws  of  Pennsylvania,  the  statutes 
against  blasphemy,  the  violation  of  the 
Lord's  day,  and  others  to  the  same 
effect,  proceed  on  this  great,  broad 
principle,  that  the  preservation  of  Chris 
tianity  is  one  of  the  main  ends  of  gov 
ernment.  This  is  the  general  public 
policy  of  Pennsylvania.  On  this  head 
we  have  the  case  of  Updegraph  v.  The 
Commonwealth,1  in  which  a  decision  in 
accordance  with  this  whole  doctrine  was 
given  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Penn 
sylvania.  The  solemn  opinion  pro 
nounced  by  that  tribunal  begins  by  a 
general  declaration  that  Christianity  is, 
1  11  Sergeant  &  Rawle,  p.  394. 


530 


THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 


and  has  always  been,  part  of  the  com 
mon  law  of  Pennsylvania. 

I  have  said,  your  honors,  that  our 
system  of  oaths  in  all  our  courts,  by 
which  we  hold  liberty  and  property, 
and  all  our  rights,  is  founded  on  or 
rests  on  Christianity  and  a  religious 
belief.  In  like  manner  the  affirmation 
of  Quakers  rests  on  religious  scruples 
drawn  from  the  same  source,  the  same 
feeling  of  religious  responsibility. 

The  courts  of  Pennsylvania  have 
themselves  decided  that  a  charitable 
bequest,  which  counteracts  the  public 
policy  of  the  State,  cannot  be  sustained. 
This  was  so  ruled  in  the  often  cited  case 
of  the  Methodist  Church  v.  Remington. 
There,  the  devise  was  to  the  Methodist 
Church  generally,  extending  through 
the  States  and  into  Canada,  and  the 
trust  was  declared  void  on  this  account 
alone;  namely,  that  it  was  inconsistent 
with  the  public  policy  of  the  State, 
inconsistent  with  the  general  spirit  of 
the  laws  of  Pennsylvania.  But  is  there 
any  comparison  to  be  made  between 
that  ground  on  which  a  devise  to  a 
church  is  declared  void,  namely,  as  in 
consistent  with  the  public  policy  of  the 
State,  and  the  case  of  a  devise  -which 
undermines  and  opposes  the  whole 
Christian  religion,  and  derides  all  its 
ministers;  the  one  tending  to  destroy 
all  religion,  arid  the  other  being  merely 
against  the  spirit  of  the  legislation  and 
laws  of  the  State,  and  the  general  public 
policy  of  government,  in  a  very  subordi 
nate  matter?  Can  it  be  shown  that  this 
devise  of  a  piece  of  ground  to  the  Meth 
odist  Church  can  be  properly  set  aside, 
and  declared  void  on  general  grounds, 
and  not  be  shown  that  such  a  devise  as 
that  of  Mr.  Girard,  which  tends  to  over 
turn  as  well  as  oppose  the  public  policy 
and  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  can  also  be 
set  aside? 

Sir,  there  are  many  other  American 
cases  which  I  could  cite  to  the  court  in 
support  of  this  point  of  the  case.  I  will 
now  only  refer  to  8  Johnson,  page  291. 

It  is  the  same  in  Pennsylvania  as 
elsewhere,  the  general  principles  and 
public  policy  are  sometimes  established 
by  constitutional  provisions,  sometimes 


by  legislative  enactments,  sometimes  by 
judicial  decisions,  and  sometimes  by 
general*  consent.  But  however  they 
may  be  established,  there  is  nothing 
that  we  look  for  with  more  certainty 
than  this  general  principle,  that  Chris 
tianity  is  part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 
This  was  the  case  among  the  Puritans 
of  New  England,  the  Episcopalians  of 
the  Southern  States,  the  Pennsylvania 
Quakers,  the  Baptists,  the  mass  of  the 
followers  of  Whitefield  and  Wesley,  and 
the  Presbyterians;  all  brought  and  all 
adopted  this  great  truth,  and  all  have 
sustained  it.  And  where  there  is  any 
religious  sentiment  amongst  men  at  all, 
this  sentiment  incorporates  itself  with 
the  law.  Every  thing  declares  it.  The 
massive  cathedral  of  the  Catholic;  the 
Episcopalian  church,  with  its  lofty  spire 
pointing  heavenward;  the  plain  temple 
of  the  Quaker;  the  log  church  of  the 
hardy  pioneer  of  the  wilderness;  the 
mementos  and  memorials  around  and 
about  us;  the  consecrated  graveyards, 
their  tombstones  and  epitaphs,  their 
silent  vaults,  their  mouldering  contents ; 
all  attest  it.  The  dead  prove  it  as  well 
as  the  living.  The  generations  that  are 
gone  before  speak  to  it,  and  pronounce 
it  from  the  tomb.  We  feel  it.  All,  all, 
proclaim  that  Christianity,  general,  tol 
erant  Christianity,  Christianity  inde 
pendent  of  sects  and  parties,  that  Chris 
tianity  to  which  the  sword  and  the  fagot 
are  unknown,  general,  tolerant  Chris 
tianity,  is  the  law  of  the  land. 

Mr.  Webster,  having  gone  over  the  other 
points  in  the  case,  which  were  of  a  more 
technical  character,  in  conclusion,  said  :  — 

I  now  take  leave  of  this  cause.  I 
look  for  no  good  whatever  from  the  es 
tablishment  of  this  school,  this  college, 
this  scheme,  this  experiment  of  an 
education  in  "practical  morality,"  un 
blessed  by  the  influences  of  religion. 
It  sometimes  happens  to  man  to  attain 
by  accident  that  which  he  could  not 
achieve  by  long-continued  exercise  of 
industry  and  ability.  And  it  is  said 
even  of  the  man  of  genius,  that  by 
chance  he  will  sometimes  "  snatch  a 
grace  beyond  the  reach  of  art."  And 


AND    THE  RELIGIOUS   INSTRUCTION   OF   THE   YOUNG. 


531 


I  believe  that  men  sometimes  do  mis 
chief,  not  only  beyond  their  intent, 
but  beyond  the  ordinary  scope  of  their 
talents  and  ability.  In  my  opinion,  if 
Mr.  Girard  had  given  years  to  the  study 
of  a  mode  by  which  he  could  dispose  of 
his  vast  fortune  so  that  no  good  could 
arise  to  the  general  cause  of  charity,  no 
good  to  the  general  cause  of  learning, 
no  good  to  human  society,  and  which 
should  be  most  productive  of  protracted 
struggles,  troubles,  and  difficulties  in 
the  popular  counsels  of  a  great  city,  he 
could  not  so  effectually  have  attained 
that  result  as  he  has  by  this  devise  now 
before  the  court.  It  is  not  the  result 
of  good  fortunes,  but  of  bad  fortunes, 


which  have  overriden  and  cast  down 
whatever  of  good  might  have  been  ac 
complished  by  a  different  disposition. 
I  believe  that  this  plan,  this  scheme, 
was  unblessed  in  all  its  purposes,  and 
in  all  its  original  plans.  Unwise  in  all 
its  frame  and  theory,  while  it  lives  it 
will  lead  an  annoyed  and  troubled  life, 
and  leave  an  unblessed  memory  when  it 
dies.  If  I  could  persuade  myself  that 
this  court  would  come  to  such  a  decision 
as,  in  my  opinion,  the  public  good  and 
the  law  require,  and  if  I  could  believe 
that  any  humble  efforts  of  my  own  had 
contributed  in  the  least  to  lead  to  such 
a  result,  I  should  deem  it  the  crowning 
mercy  of  my  professional  life. 


MR.    JUSTICE     STORY.1 


[Ax  a  meeting  of  the  Suffolk  Bar,  held 
in  the  Circuit  Court  Room,  Boston,  on  the 
morning  of  the  12th  of  September,  the  day 
of  the  funeral  of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  Chief 
Justice  Shaw  having  taken  the  chair  and 
announced  the  object  of  the  meeting,  Mr. 
Webster  rose  and  spoke  substantially  as 
follows.] 

YOUR,  solemn  announcement,  Mr. 
Chief  Justice,  has  confirmed  the  sad 
intelligence  which  had  already  reached 
us,  through  the  public  channels  of  in 
formation,  and  deeply  afflicted  us  all. 

JOSEPH  STORY,  one  of  the  Associate 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  for  many  years  the 
presiding  judge  of  this  Circuit,  died  on 
Wednesday  evening  last,  at  his  house 
in  Cambridge,  wanting  only  a  few  days 
for  the  completion  of  the  sixty-sixth 
year  of  his  age. 

This  most  mournful  and  lamentable 
event  has  called  together  the  whole  Bar 
of  Suffolk,  and  all  connected  with  the 
courts  of  law  or  the  profession.  It  has 
brought  you,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  and 
your  associates  of  the  Bench  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  Massachusetts,  into  the 
midst  of  us;  and  you  have  done  us  the 
honor,  out  of  respect  to  the  occasion,  to 
consent  to  preside  over  us,  while  we 
deliberate  on  what  is  due,  as  well  to 
our  own  afflicted  and  smitten  feelings, 
as  to  the  exalted  character  and  eminent 
distinction  of  the  deceased  judge.  The 
occasion  has  drawn  from  his  retirement, 

1  The  following  letter  of  dedication  to  the 
mother  of  Judge  Story  accompanied  these  re 
marks  in  the  original  edition  :  — 

"Boston,  September  15,  1845. 

"  VENERABLE  MADAM,  —  I  pray  3'ou  to 
allow  me  to  present  to  you  the  brief  remarks 
which  I  made  before  the  Suffolk  Bar,  on  the 
12th  instant,  at  a  meeting  occasioned  by  the 
sudden  and  afflicting  death  of  your  distinguished 


also,  that  venerable  man,  whom  we  all 
so  much  respect  and  honor,  (Judge 
Davis,)  who  was,  for  thirty  years,  the 
associate  of  the  deceased  upon  the  same 
Bench.  It  has  called  hither  another 
judicial  personage,  now  in  retirement, 
(Judge  Putnam,)  but  long  an  ornament 
of  that  Bench  of  which  you  are  now  the 
head,  and  whose  marked  good  fortune 
it  is  to  have  been  the  professional  teach 
er  of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  and  the  director 
of  his  early  studies.  He  also  is  present 
to  whom  this  blow  comes  near;  I  mean, 
the  learned  judge  (Judge  Sprague)  from 
whose  side  it  has  struck  away  a  friend 
and  a  highly  venerated  official  associate. 
The  members  of  the  Law  School  at 
Cambridge,  to  which  the  deceased  was 
so  much  attached,  and  who  returned 
that  attachment  with  all  the  ingenuous 
ness  and  enthusiasm  of  educated  and 
ardent  youthful  minds,  are  here  also,  to 
manifest  their  sense  of  their  own  severe 
deprivation,  as  well  as  their  admiration 
of  the  bright  and  shining  professional 
example  which  they  have  so  loved  to 
contemplate,  —  an  example,  let  me  say 
to  them,  and  let  me  say  to  all,  as  a 
solace  in  the  midst  of  their  sorrows, 
which  death  hath  not  touched  and  which 
time  cannot  obscure. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  one  sentiment  per 
vades  us  all.  It  is  that  of  the  most 
profound  and  penetrating  grief,  mixed, 
nevertheless,  with  an  assured  convic- 

son.  I  trust,  dear  Madam,  that  as  you  enjoyed 
through  his  whole  life  constant  proofs  of  his 
profound  respect  and  ardent  filial  affection,  so 
you  may  yet  live  long  to  enjoy  the  remembrance 
of  his  virtues  and  his  exalted  reputation. 
"  I  am,  with  very  great  regard, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
"  To  MADAM  STORY." 


MR.  JUSTICE  STORY. 


533 


tion,  that  the  great  man  whom  we  de 
plore  is  yet  with  us  and  in  the  midst  of 
us.  He  hath  not  wholly  died.  He  lives 
in  the  affections  of  friends  and  kindred, 
and  in  the  high  regard  of  the  community. 
He  lives  in  our  remembrance  of  his  so 
cial  virtues,  his  warm  and  steady  friend 
ships,  and  the  vivacity  and  richness  of 
his  conversation.  He  lives,  and  will  live 
still  more  permanently,  by  his  words  of 
written  wisdom,  by  the  results  of  his 
vast  researches  and  attainments,  by  his 
imperishable  legal  judgments,  and  by 
those  juridical  disquisitions  which  have 
stamped  his  name,  all  over  the  civilized 
world,  with  the  character  of  a  com 
manding  authority.  u  Vivit,  enim, 
vivetque  semper;  atque  etiam  latius  in 
memoria  hominum  et  sermone  versabi- 
tur,  postquam  ab  oculis  recessit." 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  there  are  consola 
tions  which  arise  to  mitigate  our  loss, 
and  shed  the  influence  of  resignation 
over  unfeigned  and  heart-felt  sorrow. 
We  are  all  penetrated  with  gratitude  to 
God  that  the  deceased  lived  so  long; 
that  he  did  so  much  for  himself,  his 
friends,  the  country,  and  the  world; 
that  his  lamp  went  out,  at  last,  without 
unsteadiness  or  flickering.  He  contin 
ued  to  exercise  every  power  of  his  mind 
without  dimness  or  obscuration,  and 
every  affection  of  his  heart  with  no 
abatement  of  energy  or  warmth,  till 
death  drew  an  impenetrable  veil  be 
tween  us  and  him.  Indeed,  he  seems 
to  us  now,  as  in  truth  he  is,  not  extin 
guished  or  ceasing  to  be,  but  only  with 
drawn  ;  as  the  clear  sun  goes  down  at 
its  setting,  not  darkened,  but  only  no 
longer  seen. 

This  calamity,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  is 
not  confined  to  the  bar  or  the  courts  of 
this  Commonwealth.  It  will  be  felt  by 
every  bar  throughout  the  land,  by  every 
court,  and  indeed  by  every  intelligent 
and  well-informed  man  in  or  out  of  the 
profession.  It  will  be  felt  still  more 
widely,  for  his  reputation  had  a  still 
wider  range.  In  the  High  Court  of 
Parliament,  in  every  tribunal  in  West 
minster  Hall,  in  the  judicatories  of 
Paris  and  Berlin,  of  Stockholm  and  St. 
Petersburg,  in  the  learned  universities 


of  Germany,  Italy,  and  Spain,  by  every 
eminent  jurist  in  the  civilized  world,  it 
will  be  acknowledged  that  a  great  lumi 
nary  has  fallen  from  the  firmament  of 
public  jurisprudence. 

Sir,  there  is  no  purer  pride  of  country 
than  that  in  which  we  may  indulge 
when  we  see  America  paying  back  the 
great  debt  of  civilization,  learning,  and 
science  to  Europe.  In  this  high  return 
of  light  for  light  and  mind  for  mind,  in 
this  august  reckoning  and  accounting 
between  the  intellects  of  nations,  Joseph 
Story  was  destined  by  Providence  to 
act,  and  did  act,  an  important  part. 
Acknowledging,  as  we  all  acknowledge, 
our  obligations  to  the  original  sources 
of  English  law,  as  well  as  of  civil  lib 
erty,  we  have  seen  in  our  generation 
copious  and  salutary  streams  turning 
and  running  backward,  replenishing 
their  original  fountains,  and  giving  a 
fresher  and  a  brighter  green  to  the  fields 
of  English  jurisprudence.  By  a  sort  of 
reversed  hereditary  transmission,  the 
mother,  without  envy  or  humiliation, 
acknowledges  that  she  has  received  a 
valuable  and  cherished  inheritance  from 
the  daughter.  The  profession  in  Eng 
land  admits  with  frankness  and  candor, 
and  with  no  feeling  but  that  of  respect 
and  admiration,  that  he  whose  voice  we 
have  so  recently  heard  within  these 
walls,  but  shall  now  hear  no  more,  was, 
of  all  men  who  have  yet  appeared,  most 
fitted  by  the  comprehensiveness  of  his 
mind,  and  the  vast  extent  and  accuracy 
of  his  attainments,  to  compare  the  codes 
of  nations,  to  trace  their  differences  to 
difference  of  origin,  climate,  or  religious 
or  political  institutions,  and  to  exhibit, 
nevertheless,  their  concurrence  in  those 
great  principles  upon  which  the  system 
of  human  civilization  rests. 

Justice,  Sir,  is  the  great  interest  of 
man  on  earth.  It  is  the  ligament  which 
holds  civilized  beings  and  civilized  na 
tions  together.  Wherever  her  temple 
stands,  and  so  long  as  it  is  duly  honored, 
there  is  a  foundation  for  social  security, 
general  happiness,  and  the  improvement 
and  progress  of  our  race.  And  whoever 
labors  on  this  edifice  with  usefulness 
and  distinction,  whoever  clears  its  foun- 


534 


MR.   JUSTICE   STORY. 


dations,  strengthens  its  pillars,  adorns 
its  entablatures,  or  contributes  to  raise 
its  august  dome  still  higher  in  the  skies, 
connects  himself,  in  name,  and  fame, 
and  character,  with  that  which  is  and 
must  be  as  durable  as  the  frame  of  hu 
man  society. 

All  know,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  the  pure 
love  of  country  which  animated  the 
deceased,  and  the  zeal,  as  well  as  the 
talent,  with  which  he  explained  and  de 
fended  her  institutions.  His  work  on 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is 
one  of  his  most  eminently  successful 
labors.  But  all  his  writings,  and  all  his 
judgments,  all  his  opinions,  and  the 
whole  influence  of  his  character,  public 
and  private,  leaned  strongly  and  always 
to  the  support  of  sound  principles,  to 
the  restraint  of  illegal  power,  and  to  the 
discouragement  and  rebuke  of  licentious 
and  disorganizing  sentiments.  "Ad 
rempublicam  firmandam,  et  ad  stabi- 
liendas  vires,  et  sanandum  populum, 
omnis  ejus  pergebat  institutio." 

But  this  is  not  the  occasion,  Sir,  nor  is 
it  for  me  to  consider  and  discuss  at  length 
the  character  and  merits  of  Mr.  Justice 
Story,  as  a  writer  or  a  judge.  The  per 
formance  of  that  duty,  with  which  this 
Bar  will  no  doubt  charge  itself,  must  be 
deferred  to  another  opportunity,  and 
will  be  committed  to  abler  hands.  But 
in  the  homage  paid  to  his  memory,  one 
part  may  come  with  peculiar  propriety 
and  emphasis  from  ourselves.  We  have 
known  him  in  private  life.  We  have 
seen  him  descend  from  the  bench,  and 
mingle  in  our  friendly  circles.  We  have 
known  his  manner  of  life,  from  his  youth 
up.  We  can  bear  witness  to  the  strict 
uprightness  and  purity  of  his  character, 
his  simplicity  and  unostentatious  habits, 
the  ease  and  affability  of  his  intercourse, 
his  remarkable  vivacity  amidst  severe 
labors,  the  cheerful  and  animating  tones 
of  his  conversation,  and  his  fast  fidelity 
to  friends.  Some  of  us,  also,  can  tes 
tify  to  his  large  and  liberal  charities, 
not  ostentatious  or  casual,  but  sys 
tematic  and  silent,  —  dispensed  almost 
without  showing  the  hand,  and  falling 
and  distilling  comfort  and  happiness, 
like  the  dews  of  heaven.  But  we  can 


testify,  also,  that  in  all  his  pursuits  and 
employments,  in  all  his  recreations,  in 
all  his  commerce  with  the  world,  and  in 
his  intercourse  with  the  circle  of  his 
friends,  the  predominance  of  his  judicial 
character  was  manifest.  He  never  for 
got  the  ermine  which  he  wore.  The 
judge,  the  judge,  the  useful  and  dis 
tinguished  judge,  was  the  great  picture 
which  he  kept  constantly  before  his 
eyes,  and  to  a  resemblance  of  which  all 
his  efforts,  all  his  thoughts,  all  his  life, 
were  devoted.  We  may  go  the  world 
over,  without  finding  a  man  who  shall 
present  a  more  striking  realization  of 
the  beautiful  conception  of  D'Agues- 
seau:  "C'est  en  vain  que  1'on  cherche  a 
distinguer  en  lui  la  personne  privee  et 
la  personne  publique;  un  meme  esprit 
les  anime,  un  meme  objet  les  re'unit; 
1'homme,  le  pcre  de  famille,  le  citoyen, 
tout  est  en  lui  consacre  h  la  gloire  du 
magistrat." 

Mr.  Chief  Justice,  one  may  live  as  a 
conqueror,  a  king,  or  a  magistrate ;  but 
he  must  die  as  a  man.  The  bed  of  death 
brings  every  human  being  to  his  pure  in 
dividuality  ;  to  the  intense  contempla 
tion  of  that  deepest  and  most  solemn  of 
all  relations,  the  relation  between  the 
creature  and  his  Creator.  Here  it  is 
that  fame  and  renown  cannot  assist 
us;  that  all  external  things  must  fail 
to  aid  us  ;  that  even  friends,  affec 
tion,  and  human  love  and  devotedness, 
cannot  succor  us.  This  relation,  the 
true  foundation  of  all  duty,  a  relation 
perceived  and  felt  by  conscience  and 
confirmed  by  revelation,  our  illustrious 
friend,  now  deceased,  always  acknowl 
edged.  He  reverenced  the  Scriptures  of 
truth,  honored  the  pure  morality  which 
they  teach,  and  clung  to  the  hopes  of 
future  life  which  they  impart.  He  be 
held  enough  in  nature,  in  himself,  and 
in  all  that  can  be  known  of  things  seen, 
to  feel  assured  that  there  is  a  Supreme 
Power,  without  whose  providence  not  a 
sparrow  falleth  to  the  ground.  To  this 
gracious  being  he  trusted  himself  for 
time  and  for  eternity  ;  and  the  last 
words  of  his  lips  ever  heard  by  mor 
tal  ears  were  a  fervent  supplication  to 
his  Maker  to  take  him  to  himself. 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


AN  ARGUMENT  MADE  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON 
THE  27TH  OF  JANUARY,   1848,   IN  THE  DORR  REBELLION   CASES. 


[THE  facts  necessary  to  the  understand 
ing  of  these  cases  are  sufficiently  set  forth 
in  the  commencement  of  Mr.  Webster's 
argument.  The  event  out  of  which  the 
cases  arose  is  known  in  popular  language 
as  the  Dorr  Rebellion.  The  first  case  (that 
of  Martin  Luther  against  Luther  M.  Borden 
and  others)  came  up  by  writ  of  error  from 
the  Circuit  Court  of  Rhode  Island,  in  which 
the  jury,  under  the  rulings  of  the  court 
(Mr.  Justice  Story),  found  a  verdict  for  the 
defendants  ;  the  second  case  (that  of  Rachel 
Luther  against  the  same  defendants)  came 
up  by  a  certificate  of  a  division  of  opinion. 
The  allegations,  evidence,  and  arguments 
were  the  same  in  both  cases. 

The  first  case  was  argued  by  Mr.  Hallet 
and  Mr.  Clifford  (Attorney-General)  for  the 
plaintiffs  in  error,  and  by  Mr.  Whipple  and 
Mr.  Webster  for  the  defendants  in  error. 
Mr.  Justice  Catron,  Mr.  Justice  Daniel,  and 
Mr.  Justice  McKinley  were  absent  from  the 
court,  in  consequence  of  ill  health.  Chief 
Justice  Taney  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  affirming  the  judgment  of  the  court 
below  in  the  first  case,  and  dismissing  the 
second  for  want  of  jurisdiction.  Mr.  Jus 
tice  Woodbury  dissented,  and  delivered  a 
very  elaborate  opinion  in  support  of  his 
view  of  the  subject] 

THERE  is  something  novel  and  ex 
traordinary  in  the  case  now  before  the 
court.  All  will  admit  that  it  is  not 
such  a  one  as  is  usually  presented  for 
judicial  consideration. 

It  is  well  known,  that  in  the  years 
1841  and  1842  political  agitation  existed 
in  Rhode  Island.  Some  of  the  citizens 
of  that  State  undertook  to  form  a  new 
constitution  of  government,  beginning 


their  proceedings  towards  that  end  by 
meetings  of  the  people,  held  without 
authority  of  law,  and  conducting  those 
proceedings  through  such  forms  as  led 
them,  in  1842,  to  say  that  they  had  es 
tablished  a  new  constitution  and  form 
of  government,  and  placed  Mr.  Thomas 
W.  Dorr  at  its  head.  The  previously 
existing,  and  then  existing,  government 
of  Rhode  Island  treated  these  proceed 
ings  as  nugatory,  so  far  as  they  went  to 
establish  a  new  constitution ;  and  crim 
inal,  so  far  as  they  proposed  to  confer 
authority  upon  any  persons  to  interfere 
with  the  acts  of  the  existing  govern 
ment,  or  to  exercise  powers  of  legisla 
tion,  or  administration  of  the  laws.  All 
will  remember  that  the  state  of  things 
approached,  if  not  actual  conflict  be 
tween  men  in  arms,  at  least  the  "  peril 
ous  edge  of  battle."  Arms  were  re 
sorted  to,  force  was  used,  and  greater 
force  threatened.  In  June,  1842,  this 
agitation  subsided.  The  new  govern 
ment,  as  it  called  itself,  disappeared  from 
the  scene  of  action.  The  former  gov 
ernment,  the  Charter  government,  as  it 
was  sometimes  styled,  resumed  undis 
puted  control,  went  on  in  its  ordinary 
course,  and  the  peace  of  the  State  was 
restored. 

But  the  past  had  been  too  serious  to 
be  forgotten.  The  legislature  of  the 
State  had,  at  an  early  stage  of  the 
troubles,  found  it  necessary  to  pass 


536 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


special  laws  for  the  punishment  of  the 
persons  concerned  in  these  proceedings. 
It  defined  the  crime  of  treason,  as  well 
as  smaller  offences,  and  authorized  the 
declaration  of  martial  law.  Governor 
King,  under  this  authority,  proclaimed 
the  existence  of  treason  and  rebellion 
in  the  State,  and  declared  the  State 
under  martial  law.  This  having  been 
done,  and  the  ephemeral  government  of 
Mr.  Dorr  having  disappeared,  the  grand 
juries  of  the  State  found  indictments 
against  several  persons  for  having  dis 
turbed  the  peace  of  the  State,  and  one 
against  Dorr  himself  for  treason.  This 
indictment  came  on  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Rhode  Island  in  1844,  before 
a  tribunal  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be 
the  legal  judicature  of  the  State.  He 
was  tried  by  a  jury  of  Rhode  Island, 
above  all  objection,  and  after  all  chal 
lenge.  By  that  jury,  under  the  instruc 
tions  of  the  court,  he  was  convicted  of 
treason,  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment 
for  life. 

Now  an  action  is  brought  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  and  be 
fore  your  honors,  by  appeal,  in  which 
it  is  attempted  to  prove  that  the  char 
acters  of  this  drama  have  been  oddly 
and  wrongly  cast;  that  there  has  been 
a  great  mistake  in  the  courts  of  Rhode 
Island.  It  is  alleged,  that  Mr.  Dorr, 
instead  of  being  a  traitor  or  an  insur 
rectionist,  was  the  real  governor  of  the 
State  at  the  time;  that  the  force  used 
by  him  was  exercised  in  defence  of  the 
constitution  and  laws,  and  not  against 
them ;  that  he  who  opposed  the  consti 
tuted  authorities  was  not  Mr.  Dorr,  but 
Governor  King;  and  that  it  was  he  who 
should  have  been  indicted,  and  tried, 
and  sentenced.  This  is  rather  an  im 
portant  mistake,  to  be  sure,  if  it  be  a 
mistake.  u  Change  places,"  cries  poor 
Lear,  "  change  places,  and  handy-dandy, 
which  is  the  justice  and  which  the 
thief?  "  So  our  learned  opponents  say, 
*'  Change  places,  and,  handy-dandy, 
which  is  the  governor  and  which  the 
rebel?  "  The  aspect  of  the  case  is,  as 
I  have  said,  novel.  It  may  perhaps 
give  vivacity  and  variety  to  judicial  in 
vestigations.  It  may  relieve  the  drudg 


ery  of  perusing  briefs,  demurrers,  and 
pleas  in  bar,  bills  in  equity  and  an 
swers,  ari*d  introduce  topics  which  give 
sprightliness,  freshness,  and  something 
of  an  uncommon  public  interest  to  pro 
ceedings  in  courts  of  law. 

However  difficult  it  may  be,  and  I 
suppose  it  to  be  wholly  impossible,  that 
this  court  should  take  judicial  cogni 
zance  of  ther  questions  which  the  plain 
tiff  has  presented  to  the  court  below,  yet 
I  do  not  think  it  a  matter  of  regret  that 
the  cause  has  come  hither.  It  is  said, 
and  truly  said,  that  the  case  involves 
the  consideration  and  discussion  of  what 
are  the  true  principles  of  government  in 
our  American  system  of  public  liberty. 
This  is  very  right.  The  case  does  in 
volve  these  questions,  and  harm  can 
never  come  from  their  discussion,  espe 
cially  when  such  discussion  is  addressed 
to  reason  and  not  to  passion ;  when  it  is 
had  before  magistrates  and  lawyers,  and 
not  before  excited  masses  out  of  doors. 
I  agree  entirely  that  the  case  does  raise 
considerations,  somewhat  extensive,  of 
the  true  character  of  our  American  sys 
tem  of  popular  liberty ;  and  although  I 
am  constrained  to  differ  from  the  learned 
counsel  who  opened  the  cause  for  the 
plaintiff  in  error,  on  the  principles  and 
character  of  that  American  liberty,  and 
upon  the  true  characteristics  of  that 
American  system  on  which  changes  of 
the  government  and  constitution,  if  they 
become  necessary,  are  to  be  made,  yet  I 
agree  with  him  that  this  case  does  pre 
sent  them  for  consideration. 

Now,  there  are  certain  principles  of 
public  liberty,  which,  though  they  do 
not  exist  in  all  forms  of  government, 
exist,  nevertheless,  to  some  extent,  in 
different  forms  of  government.  The 
protection  of  life  and  property,  the  1m- 
beas  corpus,  trial  by  jury,  the  right  of 
open  trial,  these  are  principles  of  public 
liberty  existing  in  their  best  form  in  the 
republican  institutions  of  this  country, 
but,  to  the  extent  mentioned,  existing 
also  in  the  constitution  of  England. 
Our  American  liberty,  allow  me  to  say, 
therefore,  has  an  ancestry,  a  pedigree,  a 
history.  Our  ancestors  brought  to  this 
continent  all  that  was  valuable,  in  their 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


537 


judgment,  in  the  political  institutions  of 
England,  and  left  behind  them  all  that 
was  without  value,  or  that  was  objec 
tionable.  During  the  colonial  period 
they  were  closely  connected  of  course 
with  the  colonial  system ;  but  they  were 
Englishmen,  as  well  as  colonists,  and 
took  an  interest  in  whatever  concerned 
the  mother  country,  especially  in  all 
great  questions  of  public  liberty  in  that 
country.  They  accordingly  took  a  deep 
concern  in  the  Revolution  of  1688.  The 
American  colonists  had  suffered  from 
the  tyranny  of  James  the  Second.  Their 
charters  had  been  wrested  from  them  by 
mockeries  of  law,  and  by  the  corruption 
of  judges  in  the  city  of  London;  and  in 
no  part  of  England  was  there  more  grat 
ification,  or  a  more  resolute  feeling, 
when  James  abdicated  and  William  came 
over,  than  in  the  American  colonies. 
All  know  that  Massachusetts  immedi 
ately  overthrew  what  had  been  done 
under  the  reign  of  James,  and  took  pos 
session  of  the  colonial  fort  in  the  harbor 
of  Boston  in  the  name  of  the  new  king. 

When  the  United  States  separated 
from  England,  by  the  Declaration  of 
1776,  they  departed  from  the  political 
maxims  and  examples  of  the  mother 
country,  and  entered  upon  a  course  more 
exclusively  American.  From  that  day 
down,  our  institutions  and  our  history 
relate  to  ourselves.  Through  the  period 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  of 
the  Confederation,  of  the  Convention, 
and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  all 
our  public  acts  are  records  out  of  which 
a  knowledge  of  our  system  of  American 
liberty  is  to  be  drawn. 

From  the  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence,,  the  governments  of  what  had 
been  colonies  before  were  adapted  to 
their  new  condition.  They  no  longer 
owed  allegiance  to  crowned  heads.  No 
tie  bound  them  to  England.  The  whole 
system  became  entirely  popular,  and  all 
legislative  arid  constitutional  provisions 
had  regard  to  this  new,  peculiar,  Amer 
ican  character,  which  they  had  assumed. 
Where  the  form  of  government  was  al 
ready  well  enough,  they  let  it  alone. 
Where  reform  was  necessary,  they  re 
formed  it.  What  was  valuable,  they  re 


tained;  what  was  essential,  they  added.; 
and  no  more.  Through  the  whole  pro 
ceeding,  from  1776  to  the  latest  period, 
the  whole  course  of  American  public 
acts,  the  whole  progress  of  this  Amer 
ican  system,  was  marked  by  a  peculiar 
conservatism.  The  object  was  to  do 
what  was  necessary,  and  no  more;  and 
to  do  that  with  the  utmost  temperance 
and  prudence. 

Now,  without  going  into  historical 
details  at  length,  let  me  state  what  I 
understand  the  American  principles  to 
be,  on  which  this  system  rests. 

First  and  chief,  no  man  makes  a  ques 
tion,  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all 
political  power.  Government  is  insti 
tuted  for  their  good,  and  its  members 
are  their  agents  and  servants.  He  who 
would  argue  against  this  must  argue 
without  an  adversary.  And  who  thinks 
there  is  any  peculiar  merit  in  asserting 
a  doctrine  like  this,  in  the  midst  of 
twenty  millions  of  people,  when  nine 
teen  millions  nine  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  nine 
ty-nine  of  them  hold  it,  as  well  as 
himself  ?  There  is  no  other  doctrine 
of  government  here;  and  no  man  im 
putes  to  another,  and  no  man  should 
claim  for  himself,  any  peculiar  merit  for 
asserting  what  everybody  knows  to  be 
true,  and  nobody  denies.  Why,  where 
else  can  we  look  but  to  the  people  for 
political  power,  in  a  popular  govern 
ment?  We  have  no  hereditary  execu 
tive,  no  hereditary  branch  of  the  legis 
lature,  no  inherited  masses  of  property, 
no  system  of  entails,  no  long  trusts,  no 
long  family  settlements,  no  primogeni 
ture.  Every  estate  in  the  country,  from 
the  richest  to  the  poorest,  is  divided 
among  sons  and  daughters  alike.  Alien 
ation  is  made  as  easy  as  possible ;  every 
where  the  transmissibility  of  property  is 
perfectly  free.  The  whole  system  is  ar 
ranged  so  as  to  produce,  as  far  as  un 
equal  industry  and  enterprise  render  it 
possible,  a  universal  equality  among 
men;  an  equality  of  rights  absolutely, 
and  an  equality  of  condition,  so  far  as 
the  different  characters  of  individuals 
will  allow  such  equality  to  be  produced. 
He  who  considers  that  there  may  be,  is, 


538 


THE  RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


or  ever  has  been,  since  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  any  person  who  looks 
to  any  other  source  of  power  in  this 
country  than  the  people,  so  as  to  give 
peculiar  merit  to  those  who  clamor  loud 
est  in  its  assertion,  must  be  out  of  his 
mind,  even  more  than  Don  Quixote. 
His  imagination  was  only  perverted. 
He  saw  things  not  as  they  were,  though 
what  he  saw  were  things.  He  saw 
windmills,  and  took  them  to  be  giants, 
knights  on  horseback.  This  was  bad 
enough;  but  whoever  says,  or  speaks  as 
if  he  thought,  that  anybody  looks  to  any 
other  source  of  political  power  in  this 
country  than  the  people,  must  have  a 
stronger  and  wilder  imagination,  for  he 
sees  nothing  but  the  creations  of  his  own 
fancy.  He  stares  at  phantoms. 

Well,  then,  let  all  admit,  what  none 
deny,  that  the  only  source  of  political 
power  in  this  country  is  the  people.  Let 
us  admit  that  they  are  sovereign,  for 
they  are  so ;  that  is  to  say,  the  aggregate 
community,  the  collected  will  of  the 
people,  is  sovereign.  I  confess  that  I 
think  Chief  Justice  Jay  spoke  rather 
paradoxically  than  philosophically,  when 
he  said  that  this  country  exhibited  the 
extraordinary  spectacle  of  many  sover 
eigns  and  no  subjects.  The  people,  he 
said,  are  all  sovereigns;  and  the  pecu 
liarity  of  the  case  is  that  they  have  no 
subjects,  except  a  few  colored  persons. 
This  must  be  rather  fanciful.  The  ag 
gregate  community  is  sovereign,  but 
that  is  not  the  sovereignty  which  acts  in 
the  daily  exercise  of  sovereign  power. 
The  people  cannot  act  daily  as  the  peo 
ple.  They  must  establish  a  government, 
and  invest  it  with  so  much  of  the  sover 
eign  power  as  the  case  requires;  and 
this  sovereign  power  being  delegated 
and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  govern 
ment,  that  government  becomes  what  is 
popularly  called  THE  STATE.  I  like  the 
old-fashioned  way  of  stating  things  as 
they  are ;  and  this  is  the  true  idea  of  a 
state.  It  is  an  organized  government, 
representing  the  collected  will  of  the  peo 
ple,  as  far  as  they  see  fit  to  invest  that 
government  with  power.  And  in  that 
respect  it  is  true,  that,  though  this  gov 
ernment  possesses  sovereign  power,  it 


does  not  possess  all  sovereign  power; 
and  so  the  State  governments,  though 
sovereign* in  some  respects,  are  not  so  in 
all.  Nor  could  it  be  shown  that  the 
powers  of  both,  as  delegated,  embrace 
the  whole  range  of  what  might  be  called 
sovereign  power.  We  usually  speak  of 
the  States  as  sovereign  States.  I  do  not 
object  to  this.  But  the  Constitution 
never  so  styles  them,  nor  does  the  Con 
stitution  speak  of  the  government  here 
as  the  general  or  the  federal  government. 
It  calls  this  government  the  United 
States;  and  it  calls  the  State  govern 
ments  State  governments.  Still  the  fact 
is  undeniably  so ;  legislation  is  a  sover 
eign  power,  and  is  exercised  by  the  Unit 
ed  States  government  to  a  certain  extent, 
and  also  by  the  States,  according  to  the 
forms  which  they  themselves  have  estab 
lished,  and  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Well,  then,  having  agreed  that  all 
power  is  originally  from  the  people,  and 
that  they  can  confer  as  much  of  it  as 
they  please,  the  next  principle  is,  that, 
as  the  exercise  of  legislative  power  and 
the  other  powers  of  government  immedi 
ately  by  the  people  themselves  is  im 
practicable,  they  must  be  exercised  by 
REPRESENTATIVES  of  the  people;  and 
what  distinguishes  American  govern 
ments  as  much  as  any  thing  else  from 
any  governments  of  ancient  or  of  mod 
ern  times,  is  the  marvellous  felicity  of 
their  representative  system.  It  has  with 
us,  allow  me  to  say,  a  somewhat  differ 
ent  origin  from  the  representation  of  the 
commons  in  England,  though  that  has 
been  worked  up  to  some  resemblance  of 
our  own.  The  representative  system  in 
England  had  its  origin,  not  in  any  sup 
posed  rights  of  the  people  themselves, 
but  in  the  necessities  and  commands  of 
the  crown.  At  first,  knights  and  bur 
gesses  were  summoned,  often  against 
their  will,  to  a  Parliament  called  by  the 
king.  Many  remonstrances  were  pre 
sented  against  sending  up  these  repre 
sentatives;  the  charge  of  paying  them 
was,  not  unfrequently,  felt  to  be  bur 
densome  by  the  people.  But  the  king 
wished  their  counsel  and  advice,  and 
perhaps  the  presence  of  a  popular  body, 


THE   RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


539 


to  enable  him  to  make  greater  headway 
against  the  feudal  barons  in  the  aristo 
cratic  and  hereditary  branch  of  the 
legislature.  In  process  of  time  these 
knights  and  burgesses  assumed  more 
and  more  a  popular  character,  and  be 
came,  by  degrees,  the  guardians  of  pop 
ular  rights.  The  people  through  them 
obtained  protection  against  the  encroach 
ments  of  the  crown  and  the  aristocracy, 
till  in  our  day  they  are  understood  to  be 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  charged 
with  the  protection  of  their  rights.  With 
us  it  was  always  just  so.  Representa 
tion  has  always  been  of  this  character. 
The  power  is  with  the  people ;  but  they 
cannot  exercise  it  in  masses  or  per  capita ; 
they  can  only  exercise  it  by  their  repre 
sentatives.  The  whole  system  with  us 
has  been  popular  from  the  beginning. 

Now,  the  basis  of  this  representation 
is  suffrage.  The  right  to  choose  repre 
sentatives  is  every  man's  part  in  the  ex 
ercise  of  sovereign  power;  to  have  a 
voice  in  it,  if  he  has  the  proper  qualifica 
tions,  is  the  portion  of  political  power 
belonging  to  every  elector.  That  is  the 
beginning.  That  is  the  mode  in  which 
power  emanates  from  its  source,  and 
gets  into  the  hands  of  conventions,  legis 
latures,  courts  of  law,  and  the  chair  of 
the  executive.  It  begins  in  suffrage. 
Suffrage  is  the  delegation  of  the  power 
of  an  individual  to  some  agent. 

This  being  so,  then  follow  two  other 
great  principles  of  the  American  system. 

1.  The  first  is,  that  the  right  of  suf 
frage  shall  be  guarded,  protected,   and 
secured  against  force  and  against  fraud ; 
and, 

2.  The   second    is,   that  its  exercise 
shall  be  prescribed  by  previous  law ;  its 
qualifications  shall  be  prescribed  by  pre 
vious  law;  the  time  and  place  of  its  ex 
ercise  shall  be  prescribed  by  previous  law ; 
the  manner  of  its  exercise,  under  whose 
supervision  (always  sworn  officers  of  the 
law),  is  to  be  prescribed.     And  then, 
again,  the  results  are  to  be  certified  to 
the  central  power  by  some  certain  rule, 
by  some  known  public  officers,  in  some 
clear  and  definite  form,  to  the  end  that 
two   things   may  be    done:    first,    that 
every  man  entitled  to  vote   may  vote; 


second,  that  his  vote  may  be  sent  for 
ward  and  counted,  and  so  he  may  exer 
cise  his  part  of  sovereignty,  in  common 
with  his  fellow-citizens. 

In  the  exercise  of  political  power 
through  representatives  we  know  noth 
ing,  we  never  have  known  any  thing, 
but  such  an  exercise  as  should  take  place 
through  the  prescribed  forms  of  law. 
When  we  depart  from  that,  we  shall 
wander  as  widely  from  the  American 
track  as  the  pole  is  from  the  track  of  the 
sun. 

I  have  said  that  it  is  one  principle  of 
the  American  system,  that  the  people 
limit  their  governments,  National  and 
State.  They  do  so;  but  it  is  another 
principle,  equally  true  and  certain,  and, 
according  to  my  judgment  of  things, 
equally  important,  that  the  people  often 
limit  themselves.  They  set  bounds  to 
their  own  power.  They  have  chosen  to 
secure  the  institutions  which  they  estab 
lish  against  the  sudden  impulses  of  mere 
majorities.  All  our  institutions  teem 
with  instances  of  this.  It  was  their 
great  conservative  principle,  in  consti 
tuting  forms  of  government,  that  they 
should  secure  what  they  had  established 
against  hasty  changes  by  simple  majori 
ties.  By  the  fifth  article  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  Congress, 
two  thirds  of  both  houses  concurring, 
may  propose  amendments  of  the  Con 
stitution;  or,  on  the  application  of  the 
legislatures  of  two  thirds  of  the  States, 
may  call  a  convention ;  and  amendments 
proposed  in  either  of  these  forms  must 
be  ratified  by  the  legislatures  or  con 
ventions  of  three  fourths  of  the  States. 
The  fifth  article  of  the  Constitution,  if  it 
was  made  a  topic  for  those  who  framed 
the  "people's  constitution"  of  Rhode 
Island,  could  only  have  been  a  matter  of 
reproach.  It  gives  no  countenance  to 
any  of  their  proceedings,  or  to  any  thing 
like  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  one 
remarkable  instance  of  the  enactment 
and  application  of  that  great  American 
principle,  that  the  constitution  of  gov 
ernment  should  be  cautiously  and  pru 
dently  interfered  with,  and  that  changes 
should  not  ordinarily  be  begun  and  car 
ried  through  by  bare  majorities. 


540 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND  GOVERNMENT. 


But  the  people  limit  themselves  also 
in  other  ways.  They  limit  themselves 
in  the  first  exercise  of  their  political 
rights.  They  limit  themselves,  by  all 
their  constitutions,  in  two  important 
respects ;  that  is  to  say,  in  regard  to  the 
qualifications  of  electors,  and  in  regard 
to  the  qualifications  of  the  elected.  In 
every  State,  and  in  all  the  States,  the 
people  have  precluded  themselves  from 
voting  for  everybody  they  might  wish 
to  vote  for ;  they  have  limited  their  own 
right  of  choosing.  They  have  said,  We 
will  elect  no  man  who  has  not  such  and 
such  qualifications.  We  will  not  vote 
ourselves,  unless  we  have  such  and  such 
qualifications.  They  have  also  limited 
themselves  to  certain  prescribed  forms 
for  the  conduct  of  elections.  They  must 
vote  at  a  particular  place,  at  a  particu 
lar  time,  and  under  particular  condi 
tions,  or  not  at  all.  It  is  in  these  modes 
that  we  are  to  ascertain  the  will  of  the 
American  people;  and  our  Constitution 
and  laws  know  no  other  mode.  We  are 
not  to  take  the  will  of  the  people  from 
public  meetings,  nor  from  tumultuous 
assemblies,  by  which  the  timid  are  ter 
rified,  the  prudent  are  alarmed,  and  by 
which  society  is  disturbed.  These  are 
not  American  modes  of  signifying  the 
will  of  the  people,  and  they  never  were. 
If  any  thing  in  the  country,  not  ascer 
tained  by  a  regular  vote,  by  regular  re 
turns,  and  by  regular  representation, 
has  been  established,  it  is  an  exception, 
and  not  the  rule ;  it  is  an  anomaly  which, 
I  believe,  can  scarcely  be  found. 

It  is  true  that  at  the  Revolution,  when 
all  government  was  immediately  dis 
solved,'  the  people  got  together,  'and 
what  did  they  do  ?  Did  they  exercise 
sovereign  power?  They  began  an  in 
ceptive  organization,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  bring  together  representatives  of 
vhe  people,  who  should  form  a  govern 
ment.  This  was  the  mode  of  proceeding 
in  those  States  where  their  legislatures 
were  dissolved.  It  was  much  like  that 
had  in  England  upon  the  abdication  of 
James  the  Second.  He  ran  away,  he 
abdicated.  He  threw  the  great  seal  into 
the  Thames.  I  am  not  aware  that,  on 
the  4th  of  May,  1842,  any  great  seal  was 


thrown  into  Providence  River!  But 
James  abdicated,  and  King  William  took 
the  government;  and  how  did  he  pro 
ceed?  Why,  he  at  once  requested  all 
who  had  been  members  of  the  old  Par 
liament,  of  any  regular  Parliament  in 
the  time  of  Charles  the  Second,  to  as 
semble.  The  Peers,  being  a  standing 
body,  could  of  course  assemble ;  and  all 
they  did  was  to  recommend  the  calling 
of  a  convention,  to  be  chosen  by  the 
same  electors,  and  composed  of  the  same 
numbers,  as  composed  a  Parliament. 
The  convention  assembled,  and,  as  all 
know,  was  turned  into  a  Parliament. 
This  was  a  case  of  necessity,  a  revolu 
tion.  Don't  we  call  it  so?  And  why? 
Not  merely  because  a  new  sovereign 
then  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Stuarts, 
but  because  there  was  a  change  in  the 
organization  of  the  government.  The 
legal  and  established  succession  was 
broken.  The  convention  did  not  assem 
ble  under  any  preceding  law.  There 
was  a  hiatus,  a  syncope,  in  the  action  of 
the  body  politic.  This  was  revolution, 
and  the  Parliaments  that  assembled 
afterwards  referred  their  legal  origin  to 
that  revolution. 

Is  it  not  obvious  enough,  that  men 
cannot  get  together  and  count  them 
selves,  and  say  they  are  so  many  hun 
dreds  and  so  many  thousands,  and  judge 
of  their  own  qualifications,  and  call 
themselves  the  people,  and  set  up  a  gov 
ernment?  Why,  another  set  of  men, 
forty  miles  off,  on  the  same  day,  with 
the  same  propriety,  with  as  good  quali 
fications,  and  in  as  large  numbers,  may 
meet  and  set  up  another  government; 
one  may  meet  at  Newport  and  another 
at  Chepachet,  and  both  may  call  them 
selves  the  people.  What  is  this  but 
anarchy?  What  liberty  is  there  here, 
but  a  tumultuary,  tempestuous,  violent, 
stormy  liberty,  a  sort  of  South  Ameri 
can  liberty,  without  power  except  in  its 
spasms,  a  liberty  supported  by  arms  to 
day,  crushed  by  arms  to-morrow?  Is 
that  our  liberty? 

The  regular  action  of  popular  power, 
on  the  other  hand,  places  upon  public 
liberty  the  most  beautiful  face  that  ever 
adorned  that  angel  form.  All  is  regular 


THE  RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


541 


and  harmonious  in  its  features,  and 
gentle  in  its  operation.  The  stream  of 
public  authority,  under  American  lib 
erty,  running  in  this  channel,  has  the 
strength  of  the  Missouri,  while  its  waters 
are  as  transparent  as  those  of  a  crystal 
lake.  It  is  powerful  for  good.  It 'pro 
duces  no  tumult,  no  violence,  and  no 
wrong;  — 

"Though  deep,  yet  clear;  though  gentle,  yet 

not  dull; 

Strong,    without   rage;   without   o'erflowing, 
full." 

Another  American  principle  growing 
out  of  this,  and  just  as  important  and 
well  settled  as  is  the  truth  that  the 
people  are  the  source  of  power,  is,  that, 
when  in  the  course  of  events  it  becomes 
necessary  to  ascertain  the  will  of  the 
people  on  a  new  exigency,  or  a  new 
state  of  things  or  of  opinion,  the  legis 
lative  power  provides  for  that  ascertain 
ment  by  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation. 
Has  not  that  been  our  whole  history? 
It  would  take  me  from  now  till  the  sun 
shall  go  down  to  advert  to  all  the  in 
stances  of  it,  and  I  shall  only  refer  to 
the  most  prominent,  and  especially  to 
the  establishment  of  the  Constitution 
under  which  you  sit.  The  old  Con 
gress,  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  dele 
gates  who  assembled  at  Annapolis  in 
May,  1786,  recommended  to  the  States 
that  they  should  send  delegates  to  a 
convention  to  be  holden  at  Philadelphia 
to  form  a  Constitution.  No  article  of 
the  old  Confederation  gave  them  powrer 
to  do  this;  but  they  did  it,  and  the 
States  did  appoint  delegates,  who  as 
sembled  at  Philadelphia,  and  formed 
the  Constitution.  It  was  communicated 
to  the  old  Congress,  and  that  body  rec 
ommended  to  the  States  to  make  pro 
vision  for  calling  the  people  together  to 
act  upon  its  adoption.  Was  not  that 
exactly  the  case  of  passing  a  law  to  as 
certain  the  will  of  the  people  in  a  new 
exigency?  And  this  method  was  adopt 
ed  without  opposition,  nobody  suggest 
ing  that  there  could  be  any  other  mode 
of  ascertaining  the  will  of  the  people. 

My  learned  friend  went  through  the 
constitutions  of  several  of  the  States. 
It  is  enough  to  say,  that,  of  the  old 


thirteen  States,  the  constitutions,  with 
but  one  exception,  contained  no  pro 
vision  for  their  own  amendment.  In 
New  Hampshire  there  was  a  provision 
for  taking  the  sense  of  the  people  once 
in  seven  years.  Yet  there  is  hardly  one 
that  has  not  altered  its  constitution,  and 
it  has  been  done  by  conventions  called 
by  the  legislature,  as  an  ordinary  exer 
cise  of  legislative  power.  Now  what 
State  ever  altered  its  constitution  in  any 
other  mode?  What  alteration  has  ever 
been  brought  in,  put  in,  forced  in,  or 
got  in  anyhow,  by  resolutions  of  mass 
meetings,  and  then  by  applying  force? 
In  what  State  has  an  assembly,  calling 
itself  the  people,  convened  without  law, 
without  authority,  without  .qualifica 
tions,  without  certain  officers,  with  no 
oaths,  securities,  or  sanctions  of  any 
kind,  met  and  made  a  constitution,  and 
called  it  the  constitution  of  the  STATE? 
There  must  be  some  authentic  mode  of 
ascertaining  the  will  of  the  people,  else 
all  is  anarchy.  It  resolves  itself  into 
the  law  of  the  strongest,  or,  what  is  the 
same  thing,  of  the  most  numerous  for 
the  moment,  and  all  constitutions  and 
all  legislative  rights  are  prostrated  and 
disregarded. 

But  my  learned  adversary  says,  that, 
if  we  maintain  that  the  people  (for  he 
speaks  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the 
people,  to  which  I  do  not  object)  cannot 
commence  changes  in  their  government 
but  by  some  previous  act  of  legislation, 
and  if  the  legislature  will  not  grant 
such  an  act,  we  do  in  fact  follow  the  ex 
ample  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  "the  doc 
tors  of  Laybach,"  where  the  assembled 
sovereigns  said  that  all  changes  of  gov 
ernment  must  proceed  from  sovereigns ; 
.and  it  is  said  that  we  mark  out  the 
same  rule  for  the  people  of  Rhode 
Island. 

Now  will  any  man,  will  my  adversary 
here,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  under 
take  to  show  the  least  resemblance  on 
earth  between  what  I  have  called  the 
American  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  sovereigns  at  Laybach?  What  do 
I  contend  for?  I  say  that  the  will  of 
the  people  must  prevail,  when  it  is  as 
certained  ;  but  there  must  be  some  legal 


542 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND    GOVERNMENT. 


and  authentic  mode  of  ascertaining  that 
will;  and  then  the  people  may  make 
what  government  they  please.  Was 
that  the  doctrine  of  Laybach?  Was 
not  the  doctrine  there  held  this,  —  that 
the  sovereigns  should  say  what  changes 
shall  be  made?  Changes  must  proceed 
from  them ;  new  constitutions  and  new 
laws  emanate  from  them;  and  all  the 
people  had  to  do  was  to  submit.  That 
is  what  they  maintained.  All  changes 
began  with  the  sovereigns,  and  ended 
with  the  sovereigns.  Pray,  at  about 
the  time  that  the  Congress  of  Laybach 
was  in  session,  did  the  allied  powers 
put  it  to  the  people  of  Italy  to  say  what 
sort  of  change  they  would  have?  And 
at  a  more  recent  date,  did  they  ask  the 
citizens  of  Cracow  what  change  they 
would  have  in  their  constitution?  Or 
did  they  take  away  their  constitution, 
laws,  and  liberties,  by  their  own  sover 
eign  act?  All  that  is  necessary  here  is, 
that  the  will  of  the  people  should  be  as 
certained,  by  some  regular  rule  of  pro 
ceeding,  prescribed  by  previous  law. 
But  when  ascertained,  that  will  is  as 
sovereign  as  the  will  of  a  despotic 
prince,  of  the  Czar  of  Muscovy,  or  the 
Emperor  of  Austria  himself,  though  not 
quite  so  easily  made  known.  A  ukase 
or  an  edict  signifies  at  once  the  will  of 
a  despotic  prince ;  but  that  will  of  the 
people,  which  is  here  as  sovereign  as 
the  will  of  such  a  prince,  is  not  so 
quickly  ascertained  or  known;  and 
thence  arises  the  necessity  for  suffrage, 
which  is  the  mode  whereby  each  man's 
power  is  made  to  tell  upon  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  government,  and  in  the  en 
actment  of  laws. 

One  of  the  most  recent  laws  for  taking 
the  will  of  the  people  in  any  State  is  the 
law  of  1845,  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
It  begins  by  recommending  to  the  peo 
ple  to  assemble  in  their  several  election 
districts,  and  proceed  to  vote  for  dele 
gates  to  a  convention.  If  you  will  take 
the  pains  to  read  that  act,  it  will  be  seen 
that  New  York  regarded  it  as  an  ordi 
nary  exercise  of  legislative  power.  It 
applies  all  the  penalties  for  fraudulent 
voting,  as  in  other  elections.  It  pun 
ishes  false  oaths,  as  in  other  cases.  Cer 


tificates  of  the  proper  officers  were  to  be 
held  conclusive,  and  the  will  of  the  peo 
ple  wasj  in  this  respect,  collected  essen 
tially  in  the  same  manner,  supervised  by 
the  same  officers,  under  the  same  guards 
against  force  and  fraud,  collusion  and 
misrepresentation,  as  are  usual  in  voting 
for  State  or  United  States  officers. 

We  see,  therefore,  from  the  commence 
ment  of  the  government  under  which  we 
live,  down  to  this  late  act  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  one  uniform  current  of  law, 
of  precedent,  and  of  practice,  all  going 
to  establish  the  point  that  changes  in 
government  are  to  be  brought  about  by 
the  will  of  the  people,  assembled  under 
such  legislative  provisions  as  may  be 
necessary  to  ascertain  that  will,  truly 
and  authentically. 

In  the  next  place,  may  it  please  your 
honors,  it  becomes  very  important  to 
consider  what  bearing  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  have  upon 
this  Rhode  Island  question.  Of  course 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
recognizes  the  existence  of  States.  One 
branch  of  the  legislature  of  the  United 
States  is  composed  of  Senators,  appointed 
by  the  States,  in  their  State  capacities. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  l 
says  that  "  the  United  States  shall  guar 
antee  to  each  State  a  republican  form  of 
government,  and  shall  protect  the  sev 
eral  States  against  invasion ;  and  on  ap 
plication  of.  the  legislature,  or  of  the 
executive  when  the  legislature  cannot 
be  convened,  against  domestic  violence." 
Now,  I  cannot  but  think  this  a  very 
stringent  article,  drawing  after  it  the 
most  important  consequences,  and  all  of 
them  good  consequences.  The  Consti 
tution,  in  the  section  cited,  speaks  of 
States  as  having  existing  legislatures 
and  existing  executives;  and  it  speaks 
of  cases  in  which  violence  is  practised  or 
threatened  against  the  State,  in  other 
words,  "  domestic  violence  " ;  and  it  says 
the  State  shall  be  protected.  It  says, 
then,  does  it  not?  that  the  existing  gov 
ernment  of  a  State  shall  be  protected. 
My  adversary  says,  if  so,  and  if  the  leg 
islature  would  not  call  a  convention,  and 
i  Art.  IV.  §  4. 


THE   RHODE  ISLAND  GOVERNMENT. 


543 


if,  when  the  people  rise  to  make  a  con 
stitution,  the  United  States  step  in  and 
prohibit  them,  why,  the  rights  and  priv 
ileges  of  the  people  are  checked,  con 
trolled.  Undoubtedly.  The  Constitu 
tion  does  not  proceed  on  the  ground  of 
revolution;  it  does  not  proceed  on  any 
right  of  revolution ;  but  it  does  go  on  the 
idea,  that,  within  and  under  the  Con 
stitution,  no  new  form  of  government 
can  be  established  in  any  State,  without 
the  authority  of  the  existing  govern 
ment. 

Admitting  the  legitimacy  of  the  argu 
ment  of  my  learned  adversary,  it  would 
not  authorize  the  inference  he  draws 
from  it,  because  his  own  case  falls  within 
the  same  range.  He  has  proved,  he 
thinks,  that  there  was  an  existing  gov 
ernment,  a  paper  government,  at  least; 
a  rightful  government,  as  he  alleges. 
Suppose  it  to  be  rightful,  in  his  sense  of 
right.  Suppose  three  fourths  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Rhode  Island  to  have  been  en 
gaged  in  it,  and  ready  to  sustain  it. 
What  then?  How  is  it  to  be  done  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  previous  govern 
ment  ?  How  is  the  fact,  that  three 
fourths  of  the  people  are  in  favor  of  the 
new  government,  to  be  legally  ascer 
tained?  And  if  the  existing  govern 
ment  deny  that  fact,  and  if  that  govern 
ment  hold  on,  and  will  not  surrender  till 
displaced  by  force,  and  if  it  is  threatened 
by  force,  then  the  case  of  the  Constitu 
tion  arises,  and  the  United  States  must 
aid  the  government  that  is  in,  because 
an  attempt  to  displace  a  government  by 
force  is  "  domestic  violence."  It  is  the 
exigency  provided  for  by  the  Constitu 
tion.  If  the  existing  government  main 
tain  its  post,  though  three  fourths  of  the 
State  have  adopted  the  new  constitu 
tion,  is  it  not  evident  enough  that  the 
exigency  arises  in  which  the  constitu 
tional  power  here  must  go  to  the  aid  of 
the  existing  government?  Look  at  the 
law  of  28th  February,  1795.1  Its  words 
are,  "  And  in  case  of  an  insurrection  in 
any  State,  against  the  government  thereof, 
it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  on  application  of  the 
legislature  of  such  State,  or  of  the  execu- 
1  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  I.  p.  424. 


tive  (when  the  legislature  cannot  be  con 
vened),  to  call  forth  such  number  of  the 
militia  of  any  other  State  or  States,  as 
may  be  applied  for,  as  he  may  judge 
sufficient  to  suppress  such  insurrection." 
Insurrection  against  the  existing  govern 
ment  is,  then,  the  thing  to  be  suppressed. 

But  the  law  and  the  Constitution,  the 
whole  system  of  American  institutions, 
do  not  contemplate  a  case  in  which  a  re 
sort  will  be  necessary  to  proceedings 
aliunde,  or  outside  of  the  law  and  the 
Constitution,  for  the  purpose  of  amend 
ing  the  frame  of  government.  They  go 
on  the  idea  that  the  States  are  all  repub 
lican,  that  they  are  all  representative  in 
their  forms,  and  that  these  popular  gov 
ernments  in  each  State,  the  annually 
created  creatures  of  the  people,  will  give 
all  proper  facilities  and  necessary  aids 
to  bring  about  changes  which  the  people 
may  judge  necessary  in  their  constitu 
tions.  They  take  that  ground  and  act 
on  no  other  supposition.  They  assume 
that  the  popular  will  in  all  particulars 
will  be  accomplished.  And  history  has 
proved  that  the  presumption  is  well 
founded. 

This,  may  it  please  your  honors,  is 
the  view  I  take  of  what  I  have  called 
the  American  system.  These  are  the 
methods  of  bringing  about  changes  in 
government. 

Now,  it  is  proper  to  look  into  this 
record,  and  see  what  the  questions  are 
that  are  presented  by  it,  and  consider,  — 

1.  Whether  the  case  is  one  for  judicial 
investigation  at  all;  that  is,  whether  this 
court  can    try  the    matters   which   the 
plaintiff  has  offered  to  prove  in  the  court 
below;  and, 

2.  In  the  second  place,  whether  many 
things  which  he  did  offer  to  prove,  if 
they  could    have    been   and   had    been 
proved,  were   not   acts   of    criminality, 
and  therefore  no  justification  ;  and, 

3.  Wrhether  all  that  was  offered  to  be 
proved  would  show  that,  in  point  of  fact, 
there  had  been  established  and  put  in 
operation    any    new    constitution,    dis 
placing  the  old  charter  government  of 
Rhode  Island. 

The  declaration  is  in  trespass.  The 
writ  was  issued  on  the  8th  of  October, 


544 


THE   RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


1842,  in  which  Martin  Luther  complains 
that  Luther  M.  Borden  and  others  broke 
into  his  house  in  Warren,  Rhode  Island, 
on  the  29th  of  June,  1842,  and  disturbed 
his  family  and  committed  other  illegal 
acts. 

The  defendant  answers,  that  large 
numbers  of  men  were  in  arms,  in  llhode 
Island,  for  the  purpose  of  overthrowing 
the  government  of  the  State,  and  making 
war  upon  it ;  and  that,  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  government  and  people,  mar 
tial  law  had  been  proclaimed  by  the 
Governor,  under  an  act  of  the  legisla 
ture,  on  the  25th  of  June,  1842.  The 
plea  goes  on  to  aver,  that  the  plaintiff 
was  aiding  and  abetting  this  attempt  to 
overtli row  the  government,  and  that  the 
defendant  was  under  the  military  au 
thority  of  John  T.  Child,  and  was  or 
dered  by  him  to  arrest  the  plaintiff;  for 
which  purpose  he  applied  at  the  door  of 
his  house,  and  being  refused  entrance 
lie  forced  the  door. 

The  action  is  thus  for  an  alleged  tres 
pass,  and  the  plea  is  justification  under 
the  law  of  Rhode  Island.  The  plea  and 
replications  are  as  usual  in  such  cases  in 
point  of  form.  The  plea  was  filed  at 
the  November  term  of  1842,  and  the 
case  was  tried  at  the  November  term  of 

1843,  in   the   Circuit   Court   in   llhode 
Island.     In  order  to  make  out  a  defence, 
the   defendant    offered    the   charter   of 
Rhode  Island,  the  participation  of  the 
State   in  the   Declaration   of   Indepen 
dence,  its  uniting  with  the  Confederation 
in  1778,  its  admission  into  the  Union  in 
1790,  its  continuance  in  the  Union  and 
its  recognition  as  a  State  down  to  May, 
1843,  when  the  constitution  now  in  force 
was  adopted.     Here  let  it  be  particularly 
remarked,  that  Congress  admitted  Rhode 
Island  into  the  Constitution  under  this 
identical  old  charter  government,  there 
by  giving  sanction  to  it  as  a  republican 
form   of    government.     The   defendant 
then  refers  to  all  the  laws  and  proceed 
ings  of  the  Assembly,  till  the  adoption 
of   the   present   constitution   of   Rhode 
Island.     To  repel  the  case  of  the  de 
fendant,  the  plaintiff  read  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  old  legislature,  and  docu 
ments  to  show  that  the  idea  of  changing 


the  government  had  been  entertained  as 
long  ago  as  1790.  He  read  also  certain 
resolutions  of  the  Assembly  in  1841, 
memorials  praying  changes  in  the  con 
stitution,  and  other  documents  to  the 
same  effect.  He  next  offered  to  prove 
that  suffrage  associations  were  formed 
throughout  the  State  in  1840  and  1841, 
and  that  steps  were  taken  by  them  for 
holding  public  meetings;  and  to  show 
the  proceedings  had  at  those  meetings. 
In  the  next  place,  he  offered  to  prove 
that  a  mass  convention  was  held  at  New 
port,  attended  by  over  four  thousand 
persons,  and  another  at  Providence,  at 
which  over  six  thousand  attended,  at 
which  resolutions  were  passed  in  favor 
of  the  change.  Then  he  offered  to  prove 
the  election  of  delegates;  the  meeting 
of  the  convention  in  October,  1841,  and 
the  draughting  of  the  Dorr  constitution ; 
the  reassembling  in  1841,  the  comple 
tion  of  the  draught,  its  submission  to 
the  people,  their  voting  upon  it,  its 
adoption,  and  the  proclamation  on  the 
13th  of  January,  1842,  that  the  consti 
tution  so  adopted  was  the  law  of  the 
land. 

That  is  the  substance  of  what  was 
averred  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Dorr 
constitution.  The  plaintiff  next  offered 
to  prove  that  the  constitution  was 
adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
qualified  voters  of  the  State;  that  offi 
cers  were  elected  under  it  in  April,  1842 ; 
that  this  new  government  assembled  on 
the  3d  of  May;  and  he  offered  a  copy  of 
its  proceedings.  He  sets  forth  that  the 
court  refused  to  admit  testimony  upon 
these  subjects,  and  to  these  points;  and 
ruled  that  the  old  government  and  laws 
of  the  State  were  in  full  force  and  power, 
and  then  existing,  when  the  alleged 
trespass  was  made,  and  that  they  justi 
fied  the  acts  of  the  defendants,  according 
to  their  plea. 

I  will  give  a  few  references  to  other 
proceedings  of  this  new  government. 
The  new  constitution  was  proclaimed  on 
the  13th  of  January,  1842,  by  some  of 
the  officers  of  the  convention.  On  the 
13th  of  April,  officers  were  appointed 
under  it,  and  Mr.  Dorr  was  chosen  gov 
ernor.  On  Tuesday,  the  3d  of  May,  the 


THE  RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


545 


new  legislature  met,  was  organized,  and 
then,  it  is  insisted,  the  new  constitution 
became  the  law  of  the  land.  The  legis 
lature  sat  through  that  whole  day, 
morning  and  evening;  adjourned;  met 
the  next  day,  and  sat  through  all  that 
day,  morning  and  evening,  and  did  a 
great  deal  of  paper  business.  It  went 
through  the  forms  of  choosing  a  Supreme 
Court,  and  transacting  other  business  of 
a  similar  kind,  and  on  the  evening  of 
the  4th  of  May  it  adjourned,  to  meet 
again  on  the  first  Monday  of  July,  in 
Providence, 

"And  word  spake  never  more." 

It  never  reassembled.  This  govern 
ment,  then,  whatever  it  was,  came  into 
existence  on  the  third  day  of  May,  and 
went  out  of  existence  on  the  fourth  day 
of  May. 

I  will  now  give  some  references  con 
cerning  the  new  constitution  authorized 
by  the  government,  the  old  government, 
and  which  is  now  the  constitution  of 
Rhode  Island.  It  was  framed  in  No 
vember,  1842.  It  was  voted  upon  by 
the  people  on  the  21st,  22d,  and  23d 
days  of  November,  was  then  by  them 
accepted,  and  became  by  its  own  pro 
visions  the  constitution  of  Rhode  Island 
on  the  first  Tuesday  of  May,  1843. 

Now,  what,  in  the  mean  time,  had 
become  of  Mr.  Dorr's  government? 
According  to  the  principle  of  its  friends, 
they  are  forced  to  admit  that  it  was 
superseded  by  the  new,  that  is  to  say, 
the  present  government,  because  the 
people  accepted  the  new  government. 
But  there  was  no  new  government  till 
May,  1843.  According  to  them,  then, 
there  was  an  interregnum  of  a  whole 
year.  If  Mr.  Dorr  had  had  a  govern 
ment,  what  became  of  it?  If  it  ever 
came  in,  what  put  it  out  of  existence? 
Why  did  it  not  meet  on  the  day  to  which 
it  had  adjourned?  It  was  not  displaced 
by  the  new  constitution,  because  that 
had  not  been  agreed  upon  in  convention 
till  November.  It  was  not  adopted  by 
the  people  till  the  last  of  November, 
and  it  did  not  go  into  operation  till  May. 
What  then  had  become  of  Mr.  Dorr's 
government? 


I  think  it  is  important  to  note  that 
the  new  constitution,  established  ac 
cording  to  the  prescribed  forms,  came 
thus  into  operation  in  May,  1843,  and 
was  admitted  by  all  to  be  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  State.  What  then  happened 
in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island?  I  do  not 
mean  to  go  through  all  the  trials  that 
were  had  after  this  ideal  government  of 
Mr.  Dorr  ceased  to  exist;  but  I  will  ask 
attention  to  the  report  of  the  trial  of 
Dorr  for  treason,  which  took  place  in 
1844,  before  all  the  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  State.  He  was 
indicted  in  August,  1842,  and  the  trial 
came  on  in  March,  1844.  The  indict 
ment  was  found  while  the  charter  gov 
ernment  was  in  force,  and  the  trial  was 
had  under  the  new  constitution.  He 
was  found  guilty  of  treason. 

And  I  turn  to  the  report  of  the  trial 
now,  to  call  attention  to  the  language 
of  the  court  in  its  charge,  as  deliv 
ered  by  Chief  Justice  Durfee.  I  pre 
sent  the  following  extract  from  that 
charge : — 

"  It  may  be,  Gentlemen,  that  he  really 
believed  himself  to  be  the  governor  of  the 
State,  and  that  he  acted  throughout  under 
this  delusion.  However  this  may  go  to 
extenuate  the  offence,  it  does  not  take  from 
it  its  legal  guilt.  It  is  no  defence  to  an 
indictment  for  the  violation  of  any  law  for 
the  defendant  to  come  into  court  and  say, 
'I  thought  that  I  was  but  exercising  a 
constitutional  right,  and  I  claim  an  acquit 
tal  on  the  ground  of  mistake.'  Were  it  so, 
there  would  be  an  end  to  all  law  and  all 
government.  Courts  and  juries  would  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
indictments,  in  order  to  acquit  or  excuse. 
The  accused  has  only  to  prove  that  he  has 
been  systematic  in  committing  crime,  and 
that  he  thought  that  he  had  a  right  to  com 
mit  it ;  and,  according  to  this  doctrine,  you 
must  acquit.  The  main  ground  upon  which 
the  prisoner  sought  for  a  justification  was, 
that  a  constitution  had  been  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  the  male  adult  population  of 
this  State,  voting  in  their  primary  or  nat 
ural  capacity  or  condition,  and  that  he  was 
subsequently  elected,  and  did  the  acts 
charged,  as  governor  under  it.  He  offered 
the  votes  themselves  to  prove  its  adoption, 
which  were  also  to  be  followed  by  proof  of 
his  election.  This  evidence  we  have  ruled 


546 


THE   RHODE   ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


out.  Courts  and  juries,  Gentlemen,  do  not 
count  votes  to  determine  whether  a  consti 
tution  has  been  adopted  or  a  governor 
elected,  or  not.  Courts  take  notice,  with 
out  proof  offered  from  the  bar,  what  the 
constitution  is  or  was,  and  who  is  or  was 
the  governor  of  their  own  State.  It  belongs 
to  the  legislature  to  exercise  this  high  duty. 
It  is  the  legislature  which,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  delegated  sovereignty,  counts  the 
votes  and  declares  whether  a  constitution 
be  adopted  or  a  governor  elected,  or  not ; 
and  we  cannot  revise  and  reverse  their  acts 
in  this  particular,  without  usurping  their 
power.  Were  the  votes  on  the  adoption  of 
our  present  constitution  now  offered  here 
to  prove  that  it  was  or  was  not  adopted ; 
or  those  given  for  the  governor  under  it,  to 
prove  that  he  was  or  was  not  elected ;  we 
could  not  receive  the  evidence  ourselves, 
we  could  not  permit  it  to  pass  to  the  jury. 
And  why  not?  Because,  if  we  did  so,  we 
should  cease  to  be  a  mere  judicial,  and 
become  a  political  tribunal,  with  the  whole 
sovereignty  in  our  hands.  Neither  the  peo 
ple  nor  the  legislature  would  be  sovereign. 
We  should  be  sovereign,  or  you  would  be 
sovereign ;  and  we  should  deal  out  to  par 
ties  litigant,  here  at  our  bar,  sovereignty  to 
this  or  that,  according  to  rules  or  laws  of 
our  own  making,  and  heretofore  unknown 
in  courts. 

"  In  what  condition  would  this  country 
be,  if  appeals  could  be  thus  taken  to  courts 
and  juries?  This  jury  might  decide  one 
way,  and  that  another,  and  the  sovereignty 
might  be  found  here  to-day,  and  there  to 
morrow.  Sovereignty  is  above  courts  or 
juries,  and  the  creature  cannot  sit  in  judg 
ment  upon  its  creator.  Were  this  instru 
ment  offered  as  the  constitution  of  a  foreign 
state,  we  might,  perhaps,  under  some  cir 
cumstances,  require  proof  of  its  existence ; 
but,  even  in  that  case,  the  fact  would  not 
be  ascertained  by  counting  the  votes  given 
at  its  adoption,  but  by  the  certificate  of  the 
secretary  of  state,  under  the  broad  seal  of 
the  state.  This  instrument  is  not  offered 
as  a  foreign  constitution,  and  this  court  is 
bound  to  know  what  the  constitution  of  the 
government  is  under  which  it  acts,  without 
any  proof  even  of  that  high  character.  We 
know  nothing  of  the  existence  of  the  so- 
called  '  people's  constitution  '  as  law,  and 
there  is  no  proof  before  you  of  its  adoption, 
and  of  the  election  of  the  prisoner  as  gov 
ernor  under  it;  and  you  can  return  a 
verdict  only  on  the  evidence  that  has  passed 
to  you." 


Having  thus,  may  it  please  your  IIOIK 
ors,  attempted  to  state  the  questions  as 
they  arise,  and  having  referred  to  what 
has  taken  place  in  Rhode  Island,  I  shall 
present  what  further  I  have  to  say  in 
three  propositions:  — 

1st.  I  say,  first  that  the  matters 
offered  to  be  proved  by  the  plaintiff  in 
the  court  below  are  not  of  judicial  cog 
nizance;  and  proof  of  them,  therefore, 
was  properly  rejected  by  the  court. 

2d.  If  all  these  matters  could  be,  and 
had  been,  legally  proved,  they  would 
have  constituted  no  defence,  because 
they  show  nothing  but  an  illegal  attempt 
to  overthrow  the  government  of  Rhode 
Island. 

3d.  No  proof  was  offered  by  the  plain 
tiff  to  show  that,  in  fact,  another  gov 
ernment  had  gone  into  operation,  by 
which  the  Charter  government  had 
become  displaced. 

And  first,  these  matters  are  not  of 
judicial  cognizance.  Does  this  need 
arguing?  Are  the  various  matters  of 
fact  alleged,  the  meetings,  the  appoint 
ment  of  committees,  the  qualifications 
of  voters,  —  is  there  any  one  of  all  these 
matters  of  which  a  court  of  law  can  take 
cognizance  in  a  case  in  which  it  is  to 
decide  on  sovereignty?  Are  fundamen 
tal  changes  in  the  frame  of  a  govern 
ment  to  be  thus  proved?  The  thing  to 
be  proved  is  a  change  of  the  sovereign 
power.  Two  legislatures  existed  at  the 
same  time,  both  claiming  power  to  pass 
laws.  Both  could  not  have  a  legal  ex 
istence.  What,  then,  is  the  attempt  of 
our  adversaries?  To  put  down  one 
sovereign  government,  and  to  put  an 
other  up,  by  facts  and  proceedings  in 
regard  to  elections  out  of  doors,  unau 
thorized  by  any  law  whatever.  Regular 
proceedings  for  a  change  of  government 
may  in  some  cases,  perhaps,  be  taken 
notice  of  by  a  court ;  but  this  court  must 
look  elsewhere  than  out  of  doors,  and  to 
public  meetings,  irregular  and  unau 
thorized,  for  the  decision  of  such  a 
question  as  this.  It  naturally  looks  to 
that  authority  under  which  it  sits  here, 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
which  have  created  this  tribunal,  and  to 
the  laws  by  which  its  proceedings  are 


THE  RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


547 


regulated.  It  must  look  to  the  acts  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  in 
its  various  branches. 

This  Rhode  Island  disturbance,  as 
everybody  knows,  was  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States 1  by  the  public  authorities  of  Rhode 
Island;  and  how  did  he  treat  it?  The 
United  States  have  guaranteed  to  each 
State  a  republican  form  of  government. 
And  a  law  of  Congress  has  directed  the 
President,  in  a  constitutional  case  re 
quiring  the  adoption  of  such  a  proceed 
ing,  to  call  out  the  militia  to  put  down 
domestic  violence,  and  suppress  insur 
rection.  Well,  then,  application  was 
made  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  executive  power  of  the 
United  States.  For,  according  to  our 
system,  it  devolves  upon  the  executive 
to  determine,  in  the  first  instance,  what 
are  and  what  are  not  governments.  The 
President  recognizes  governments,  for 
eign  governments,  as  they  appear  from 
time  to  time  in  the  occurrences  of  this 
changeful  world.  And  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws,  if  an  insurrection  exists 
against  the  government  of  any  State, 
rendering  it  necessary  to  appear  with 
an  armed  force,  make  it  his  duty  to  call 
out  the  militia  and  suppress  it. 

Two  things  may  here  be  properly  con 
sidered.  The  first  is,  that  the  Constitu 
tion  declares  that  the  United  States  shall 
protect  every  State  against  domestic  vio 
lence;  and  the  law  of  1795,  making  pro 
vision  for  carrying  this  constitutional 
duty  into  effect  in  all  proper  cases,  de 
clares,  that,  "  in  case  of  an  insurrection 
in  any  State  against  the  government 
thereof,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  to  call  out  the 
militia  of  other  States  to  suppress  such 
insurrection."  These  constitutional  and 
legal  provisions  make  it  the  indispensa 
ble  duty  of  the  President  to  decide,  in 
cases  of  commotion,  what  is  the  rightful 
government  of  the  State.  He  cannot 
avoid  such  decision.  And  in  this  case 
he  decided,  of  course,  that  the  existing 
government,  the  charter  government, 
was  the  rightful  government.  He  could 
not  possibly  have  decided  otherwise. 
1  Mr.  Tyler. 


In  the  next  place,  if  events  had  made 
it  necessary  to  call  out  the  militia,  and 
the  officers  and  soldiers  of  such  militia, 
in  protecting  the  existing  government, 
had  done  precisely  what  the  defendants 
in  this  case  did,  could  an  action  have 
been  maintained  against  them?  No 
one  would  assert  so  absurd  a  proposi 
tion. 

In  reply  to  the  requisition  of  the  Gov 
ernor,  the  President  stated  that  he  did 
not  think  it  was  yet  time  for  the  appli 
cation  of  force ;  but  he  wrote  a  letter  to 
the  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  he  di 
rected  him  to  confer  with  the  Governor 
of  Rhode  Island ;  and,  whenever  it  should 
appear  to  them  to  be  necessary,  to  call 
out  from  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut 
a  militia  force  sufficient  to  terminate  at 
once  this  insurrection,  by  the  authority 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
We  are  at  no  loss,  therefore,  to  know 
how  the  executive  government  of  the 
United  States  treated  this  insurrection. 
It  was  regarded  as  fit  to  be  suppressed. 
That  is  manifest  from  the  President's 
letters  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  to 
Governor  King. 

Now,  the  eye  of  this  court  must  be 
directed  to  the  proceedings  of  the  gen 
eral  government,  which  had  its  attention 
called  to  the  subject,  and  which  did  insti 
tute  proceedings  respecting  it.  And  the 
court  will  learn  from  the  proceedings  of 
the  executive  branch  of  the  government, 
and  of  the  two  chambers  above  us,  how 
the  disturbances  in  Rhode  Island  were 
regarded ;  whether  they  were  looked  upon 
as  the  establishment  of  any  government, 
or  as  a  mere  pure,  unauthorized,  un 
qualified  insurrection  against  the  author 
ity  of  the  existing  government  of  the 
State. 

I  say,  therefore,  that,  upon  that 
ground,  these  facts  are  not  facts  which 
this  court  can  inquire  into,  or  which  the 
court  below  could  try;  because  they  are 
facts  going  to  prove  (if  they  prove  any 
thing)  the  establishment  of  a  new  sov 
ereignty;  and  that  is  a  question  to  be 
settled  elsewhere  and  otherwise.  From 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it  is  not  a 
question  to  be  decided  by  judicial  in 
quiry.  Take,  for  example,  one  of  the 


548 


THE   RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


points  which  it  involves.  My  adversary 
offered  to  prove  that  the  constitution 
was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  Rhode  Island ;  by  a  large  majority,  as 
he  alleges.  What  does  this  offer  call  on 
your  honors  to  do?  Why,  to  ascertain, 
by  proof,  what  is  the  number  of  citizens 
of  Rhode  Island,  and  how  many  attended 
the  meetings  at  which  the  delegates  to 
the  convention  were  elected;  and  then 
you  have  to  add  them  all  up,  and  prove 
by  testimony  the  qualifications  of  every 
one  of  them  to  be  an  elector.  It  is 
enough  to  state  such  a  proposition  to 
show  its  absurdity.  As  none  such  ever 
was  sustained  in  a  court  of  law,  so  none 
can  be  or  ought  to  be  sustained.  Ob 
serve  that  minutes  of  proceedings  can 
be  no  proof,  for  they  were  made  by  no 
authentic  persons;  registers  were  kept 
by  no  warranted  officers;  chairmen  and 
moderators  were  chosen  without  author 
ity.  In  short,  there  are  no  official  rec 
ords;  there  is  no  testimony  in  the  case 
but  parol.  Chief  Justice  Durfee  has 
stated  this  so  plainly,  that  I  need  not 
dwell  upon  it. 

But,  again,  I  say  you  cannot  look  into 
the  facts  attempted  to  be  proved,  be 
cause  of  the  certainty  of  the  continuance 
of  the  old  government  till  the  new  and 
legal  constitution  went  into  effect  on  the 
3d  of  May,  1843.  To  prove  that  there 
was  another  constitution  of  two  days' 
duration  would  be  ridiculous.  And  I 
say  that  the  decision  of  Rhode  Island 
herself,  by  her  legislature,  by  her  execu 
tive,  by  the  adjudication  of  her  highest 
court  of  law,  on  the  trial  of  Dorr,  has 
shut  up  the  whole  case.  Do  you  propose, 
—  I  will  not  put  it  in  that  form,  —  but 
would  it  be  proper  for  this  court  to 
reverse  that  adjudication?  That  de 
clares  that  the  judges  of  Rhode  Island 
know  nothing  of  the  "  People's  Consti 
tution."  Is  it  possible,  then,  for  this 
court,  or  for  the  court  below,  to  know 
any  thing  of  it  ? 

It  appears  to  me  that,  if  there  were 
nothing  else  in  the  case,  the  proceedings 
of  Rhode  Island  herself  must  close  every 
body's  mouth,  in  the  court  and  out  of 
it.  Rhode  Island  is  competent  to  decide 
the  question  herself,  and  everybody  else 


ought  to   be   bound    by  her    decision. 
And  she  has  decided  it. 

And  ifc  is  but  a  branch  of  this  to  say, 
according  to  my  second  proposition,  — 

2.  That  if  every  thing  offered  had  been 
proved,  if  in  the  nature  of  the  case  these 
facts  and  proceedings  could  have  been 
received  as  proof,  the  court  could  not 
have  listened  to  them,  because  every  one 
of  them  is  regarded  by  the   State  in 
which  they  took  place  as  a  criminal  act. 
Who  can  derive  any  authority  from  acts 
declared  to  be  criminal?     The  very  pro 
ceedings   which   are   now    set   up   here 
show   that  this  pretended   constitution 
was  founded  upon  acts  which  the  legis 
lature  of  the  State  had  provided  punish 
ment  for,  and  which  the  courts  of  the 
State   have  punished.      All,   therefore, 
which   the   plaintiff  has    attempted  to 
prove,  are  acts  which  he  was  not  allowed 
to  prove,  because  they  were  criminal  in 
themselves,  and   have   been  so  treated 
and  punished,  so  far  as  the  State  gov 
ernment,  in  its  discretion,  has  thought 
proper  to  punish  them. 

3.  Thirdly,  and  lastly,  I  say  that  there 
is  no  evidence  offered,  nor  has  any  dis 
tinct  allegation  been  made,  that  there 
was  an  actual  government  established 
and   put   in   operation   to  displace   the 
Charter  government,  even  for  a  single 
day.      That   is   evident   enough.      You 
find  the  whole  embraced  in  those  two 
days,  the  3d   and  4th  of  May.      The 
French   revolution  was  thought   to   be 
somewhat  rapid.     That  took  three  days. 
But  this  work  was  accomplished  in  two. 
It  is  all  there,  and  what  is  it?     Its  birth, 
its  whole  life,  and  its  death  were  accom 
plished  in  forty-eight  hours.     What  does 
it  appear  that  the  members  of  this  gov 
ernment  did?     Why,  they  voted  that  A 
should  be  treasurer,  and  C,  secretary, 
and  Mr.  Dorr,  governor;  and  chose  offi 
cers  of  the   Supreme   Court.     But  did 
ever  any  man  under  that  authority  at 
tempt  to  exercise  a  particle  of  official 
power?    Did  any  man  ever  bring  a  suit? 
Did  ever  an  officer  make  an  arrest?    Did 
any  act  proceed  from  any  member  of 
this  government,  or  from  any  agent  of 
it,  to  touch  a  citizen  of  Rhode  Island  in 
his  person,  his  safety,  or  his  property, 


THE   RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


549 


so  as  to  make  the  party  answerable  upon 
an  indictment  or  in  a  civil  suit?  Never. 
It  never  performed  one  single  act  of 
government.  It  never  did  a  thing  in  the 
world!  All  was  patriotism,  and  all  was 
paper;  and  with  patriotism  and  with 
paper  it  went  out  on  the  4th  of  May, 
admitting  itself  to  be,  as  all  must  regard 
it,  a  contemptible  sham  ! 

I  have  now  done  with  the  principles 
involved  in  this  case,  and  the  questions 
presented  on  this  record. 

In  regard  to  the  other  case,  I  have  but 
few  words  to  say.  And,  first,  I  think 
it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  court  below 
sent  up  such  a  list  of  points  on  which  it 
was  divided.  I  shall  not  go  through 
them,  and  shall  leave  it  to  the  court  to 
say  whether,  after  they  shall  have  dis 
posed  of  the  first  cause,  there  is  any 
thing  left.  I  shall  only  draw  attention 
to  the  subject  of  martial  law;  and  in 
respect  to  that,  instead  of  going  back  to 
martial  law  as  it  existed  in  England  at 
the  time  the  charter  of  Rhode  Island 
was  granted,  I  shall  merely  observe  that 
martial  law  confers  powTer  of  arrest,  of 
summary  trial,  and  prompt  execution; 
and  that  when  it  has  been  proclaimed, 
the  land  becomes  a  camp,  and  the  law 
of  the  camp  is  the  law  of  the  land.  Mr. 
Justice  Story  defines  martial  law  to  be 
the  law  of  war,  a  resort  to  military  au 
thority  in  cases  where  the  civil  law  is 
not  sufficient;  and  it  confers  summary 
power,  not  to  be  used  arbitrarily  or  for 
the  gratification  of  personal  feelings  of 
hatred  or  revenge,  but  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  order  and  of  the  public  peace. 
The  officer  clothed  with  it  is  to  judge  of 
the  degree  of  force  that  the  necessity  of 
the  case  may  demand ;  and  there  is  no 
limit  to  this,  except  such  as  is  to  be 
found  in  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
exigency. 

I  now  take  leave  of  this  whole  case. 
That  it  is  an  interesting  incident  in  the 
history  of  our  institutions,  I  freely  ad 
mit.  That  it  has  come  hither  is  a  sub 
ject  of  no  regret  to  me.  I  might  have 
said,  that  I  see  nothing  to  complain  of 
in  the  proceedings  of  what  is  called  the 
Charter  government  of  Rhode  Island, 


except  that  it  might  perhaps  have  dis 
creetly  taken  measures  at  an  earlier 
period  for  revising  the  constitution.  If 
in  that  delay  it  erred,  it  was  the  error 
into  which  prudent  and  cautious  men 
would  fall.  As  to  the  enormity  of  free 
hold  suffrage,  how  long  is  it  since  Vir 
ginia,  the  parent  of  States,  gave  up  her 
freehold  suffrage?  How  long  is  it  since 
nobody  voted  for  governor  in  New  York 
without  a  freehold  qualification?  There 
are  now  States  in  which  no  man  can 
vote  for  members  of  the  upper  branch 
of  the  legislature  who  does  not  own  fifty 
acres  of  land.  Every  State  requires 
more  or  less  of  a  property  qualification 
in  its  officers  and  electors ;  and  it  is  for 
discreet  legislation,  or  constitutional  pro 
visions,  to  determine  what  its  amount 
shall  be.  Even  the  Dorr  constitution 
had  a  property  qualification.  Accord 
ing  to  its  provisions,  for  officers  of  the 
State,  to  be  sure,  anybody  could  vote; 
but  its  authors  remembered  that  taxa 
tion  and  representation  go  together, 
and  therefore  they  declared  that  no 
man,  in  any  town,  should  vote  to  lay  a 
tax  for  town  purposes  who  had  not  the 
means  to  pay  his  portion.  It  said  to 
him,  You  cannot  vote  in  the  town  of 
Providence  to  levy  a  tax  for  repairing 
the  streets  of  Providence ;  but  you  may 
vote  for  governor,  and  for  thirteen  rep 
resentatives  from  the  town  of  Provi 
dence,  and  send  them  to  the  legislature, 
and  there  they  may  tax  the  people  of 
Rhode  Island  at  their  sovereign  will 
and  pleasure. 

I  believe  that  no  harm  can  come  of 
the  Rhode  Island  agitation  in  1841,  but 
rather  good.  It  will  purify  the  political 
atmosphere  from  some  of  its  noxious 
mists,  and  I  hope  it  will  clear  men's 
minds  from  unfounded  notions  and  dan 
gerous  delusions.  I  hope  it  will  bring 
them  to  look  at  the  regularity,  the  or 
der,  with  which  we  carry  on  what,  if  the 
word  were  not  so  much  abused,  I  would 
call  our  glorious  representative  system  of 
popular  government.  Its  principles  will 
stand  the  test  of  this  crisis,  as  they  have 
stood  the  test  and  torture  of  others.  They 
are  exposed  always*  and  they  always 
will  be  exposed,  to  dangers.  There  are 


550 


THE  RHODE  ISLAND   GOVERNMENT. 


dangers  from  the  extremes  of  too  much 
and  of  too  little  popular  liberty;  from 
monarchy,  or  military  despotism,  on 
one  side,  and  from  licentiousness  and 
anarchy  on  the  other.  This  always 
will  be  the  case.  The  classical  navi 
gator  had  been  told  that  he  must  pass  a 
narrow  and  dangerous  strait: 

"Dextrum  Scylla  latus,  laevum  implacata  Cha- 

rybdis, 
Obsidet." 

Forewarned  he  was  alive  to  his  danger, 
and  knew,  by  signs  not  doubtful,  where 
he  was,  when  he  approached  its  scene: 

"  Et  gemitum  ingentem  pelagi,  pulsataque  saxa, 
Audimus  longe,  fractasque  ad  litora  voces  ; 
Exsultantque  vada,  atque  aestu    miscentur 

arenas. 
....  Nimirum  haec  ilia  Charybdis!  " 

The  long-seeing  sagacity  of  our 
fathers  enables  us  to  know  equally  well 
where  we  are,  when  we  hear  the  voices 
of  tumultuary  assemblies,  and  see  the 
turbulence  created  by  numbers  meeting 
and  acting  without  the  restraints  of 
law ;  and  has  most  wisely  provided  con 
stitutional  means  of  escape  and  security. 
When  the  established  authority  of  gov 
ernment  is  openly  contemned ;  when  no 


deference  is  paid  to  the  regular  and  au 
thentic  declarations  of  the  public  will; 
when  assembled  masses  put  themselves 
above  the  law,  and,  calling  themselves 
the  people,  attempt  by  force  to  seize  on 
the  government;  when  the  social  and 
political  order  of  the  state  is  thus  threat 
ened  with  overthrow,  and  the  spray  of 
the  waves  of  violent  popular  commotion 
lashes  the  stars,  —  our  political  pilots 
may  well  cry  out : 

"Nimirum  haec  ilia  Charybdis!  " 
The  prudence  of  the  country,  the 
sober  wisdom  of  the  people,  has  thus 
far  enabled  us  to  carry  this  Constitu 
tion,  and  all  our  constitutions,  through 
the  perils  which  have  surrounded  them, 
without  running  upon  the  rocks  on  one 
side,  or  being  swallowed  up  in  the  eddy 
ing  whirlpools  of  the  other.  And  I  fer 
vently  hope  that  this  signal  happiness 
and  good  fortune  will  continue,  and 
that  our  children  after  us  will  ex 
ercise  a  similar  prudence,  and  wis 
dom,  and  justice;  and  that,  under  the 
Divine  blessing,  our  system  of  free 
government  may  continue  to  go  on, 
with  equal  prosperity,  to  the  end  of 
time. 


OBJECTS   OF   THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE 
23o  OF  MARCH,  1848,  ON  THE  BILL  FROM  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTA 
TIVES  FOR  RAISING  A  LOAN  OF  SIXTEEN  MILLIONS  OF  DOLLARS. 


[ON  the  2d  of  February,  1848,  the  treaty 
called  a  "  treaty  of  peace,  friendship,  limits, 
and  settlement,  between  the  United  States 
of  America  and  the  Mexican  Republic," 
was  signed  at  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  This 
treaty,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  was  ratified  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  on  the  16th  of  March.  In 
the  mean  time,  a  bill,  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  the  18th  of 
February,  to  authorize  a  loan  of  sixteen 
millions  of  dollars  for  the  purpose  of  carry 
ing  on  the  war,  passed  through  that  house, 
and  was  considered  in  the  Senate.  Other 
war  measures  were  considered  and  adopted 
by  the  two  houses,  after  the  signature  and 
ratification  of  the  treaty.  On  the  23d  of 
March,  the  Sixteen  Million  Loan  Bill  being 
under  consideration,  Mr.  Webster  spoke  as 
follows.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  On  Friday  a  bill 
passed  the  Senate  for  raising  ten  regi 
ments  of  new  troops  for  the  further 
prosecution  of  the  war  against  Mexico; 
and  we  have  been  informed  that  that 
measure  is  shortly  to  be  followed,  in  this 
branch  of  the  legislature,  by  a  bill  to 
raise  twenty  regiments  of  volunteers  for 
the  same  service.  I  was  desirous  of 
expressing  my  opinions  against  the  ob 
ject  of  these  bills,  against  the  supposed 
necessity  which  leads  to  their  enact 
ment,  and  against  the  general  policy 
which  they  are  apparently  designed  to 
promote.  Circumstances  personal  to 
myself,  but  beyond  my  control,  com 
pelled  me  to  forego,  on  that  day,  the 


execution  of  that  design.  The  bill  now 
before  the  Senate  is  a  measure  for  rais 
ing  money  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the 
government,  and  to  provide  the  means, 
as  well  as  for  other  things,  for  the  pay 
and  support  of  these  thirty  regiments. 

Sir,  the  scenes  through  which  we 
have  passed,  and  are  passing,  here,  are 
various.  For  a  fortnight  the  world 
supposes  we  have  been  occupied  with 
the  ratification  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  and 
that  within  these  walls,  "the  world 
shut  out,"  notes  of  peace,  and  hopes  of 
peace,  nay,  strong  assurances  of  peace, 
and  indications  of  peace,  have  been 
uttered  to  console  and  to  cheer  us.  Sir, 
it  has  been  over  and  over  stated,  and  is 
public,  that  we  have  ratified  a  treaty, 
of  course  a  treaty  of  peace,  and,  as  the 
country  has  been  led  to  suppose,  not 
of  an  uncertain,  empty,  and  delusive 
peace,  but  of  real  and  substantial,  a 
gratifying  and  an  enduring  peace,  a 
peace  which  would  stanch  the  wounds 
of  war,  prevent  the  further  flow  of 
human  blood,  cut  off  these  enormous 
expenses,  and  return  our  friends,  and 
our  brothers,  and  our  children,  if  they 
be  yet  living,  from  the  land  of  slaugh 
ter,  and  the  land  of  still  more  dismal 
destruction  by  climate,  to  our  firesides 
and  our  arms. 

Hardly  have  these  halcyon  notes 
ceased  upon  our  ears,  when,  in  resumed 


552 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


public  session,  we  are  summoned  to 
fresh  warlike  operations;  to  create  a 
new  army  of  thirty  thousand  men  for 
the  further  prosecution  of  the  war;  to 
carry  the  war,  in  the  language  of  the 
President,  still  more  dreadfully  into  the 
vital  parts  of  the  enemy,  and  to  press 
home,  by  fire  and  sword,  the  claims  we 
make,  and  the  grounds  which  we  insist 
upon,  against  our  fallen,  prostrate,  I 
had  almost  said,  our  ignoble  enemy. 
If  we  may  judge  from  the  opening 
speech  of  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Michigan,  and  from  other  speeches  that 
have  been  made  upon  this  floor,  there 
lias  been  no  time,  from  the  commence 
ment  of  the  war,  when  it  has  been  more 
urgently  pressed  upon  us,  not  only  to 
maintain,  but  to  increase,  our  military 
means;  not  only  to  continue  the  war, 
but  to  press  it  still  more  vigorously 
than  at  present. 

Pray,  what  does  all  this  mean  ?  Is  it, 
I  ask,  confessed,  then,  —  is  it  confessed 
that  we  are  no  nearer  a  peace  than  we 
were  when  we  snatched  up  this  bit  of 
paper  called,  or  miscalled,  a  treaty,  and 
ratified  it  ?  Have  we  yet  to  fight  it  out 
to  the  utmost,  as  if  nothing  pacific  had 
intervened  ? 

I  wish,  Sir,  to  treat  the  proceedings 
of  this  and  of  every  department  of  the 
government  with  the  utmost  respect. 
The  Constitution  of  this  government, 
and  the  exercise  of  its  just  powers  in 
the  administration  of  the  laws  under  it, 
have  been  the  cherished  object  of  all 
my  unimportant  life.  But,  if  the  sub 
ject  were  not  one  too  deeply  interesting, 
I  should  say  our  proceedings  here  may 
well  enough  cause  a  smile.  In  the 
ordinary  transaction  of  the  foreign  re 
lations  of  this  and  of  all  other  govern 
ments,  the  course  has  been  to  negotiate 
first,  and  to  ratify  afterwards.  This 
seems  to  be  the  natural  order  of  con 
ducting  intercourse  between  foreign 
states.  We  have  chosen  to  reverse  this 
order.  We  ratify  first,  and  negotiate 
afterwards.  We  set  up  a  treaty,  such 
as  we  find  it  and  choose  to  make  it,  and 
then  send  two  ministers  plenipotentiary 
to  negotiate  thereupon  in  the  capital  of 
the  enemy.  One  would  think,  Sir,  the 


ordinary  course  of  proceeding  much  the 
juster;  that  to  negotiate,  to  hold  inter 
course,  apd  come  to  some  arrangement, 
by  authorized  agents,  and  then  to  sub 
mit  that  arrangement  to  the  sovereign 
authority  to  which  these  agents  are 
responsible,  would  be  always  the  most 
desirable  method  of  proceeding.  It 
strikes  me  that  the  course  we  have 
adopted  is  strange,  is  even  grotesque. 
So  far  as  I  know,  it  is  unprecedented  in 
the  history  of  diplomatic  intercourse. 
Learned  gentlemen  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  interested  to  defend  and  pro 
tect  this  course,  may,  in  their  extensive 
reading,  have  found  examples  of  it. 
I  know  of  none. 

Sir,  we  are  in  possession,  by  military 
power,  of  New  Mexico  and  California, 
countries  belonging  hitherto  to  the 
United  States  of  Mexico.  We  are  in 
formed  by  the  President  that  it  is  his 
purpose  to  retain  them,  to  consider 
them  as  territory  fit  to  be  attached  to 
these  United  States  of  America;  and 
our  military  operations  and  designs  now 
before  the  Senate  are  to  enforce  this 
claim  of  the  executive  of  the  United 
States.  We  are  to  compel  Mexico  to 
agree  that  the  part  of  her  dominions 
called  New  Mexico,  and  that  called  Cali 
fornia,  shall  be  ceded  to  us.  We  are  in 
possession,  as  is  said,  and  she  shall  yield 
her  title  to  us.  This  is  the  precise  ob 
ject  of  this  new  army  of  thirty  thousand 
men.  Sir,  it  is  the  identical  object,  in 
my  judgment,  for  which  the  war  was 
originally  commenced,  for  which  it  has 
hitherto  been  prosecuted,  and  in  further 
ance  of  which  this  treaty  is  to  be  used 
but  as  one  means  to  bring  about  this 
general  result;  that  general  result  de 
pending,  after  all,  on  our  own  superior 
power,  and  on  the  necessity  of  submit 
ting  to  any  terms  which  we  may  pre 
scribe  to  fallen,  fallen,  fallen  Mexico! 

Sir,  the  members  composing  the  other 
house,  the  more  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature,  have  all  been  elected  since, 
I  had  almost  said  the  fatal,  I  will  say 
the  remarkable,  events  of  the  llth  and 
13th  days  of  May,  1846.  The  other 
house  has  passed  a  resolution  affirming 
that  "the  war  with  Mexico  was  begun 


OBJECTS   OF   THE  MEXICAN 


553 


unconstitutionally  and  unnecessarily  by 
the  executive  government  of  the  United 
States."  I  concur  in  that  sentiment;  I 
hold  that  to  be  the  most  recent  and  au 
thentic  expression  of  the  will  and  opin 
ion  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

There  is,  Sir,  another  proposition,  not 
so  authentically  announced  hitherto,  but, 
in  my  judgment,  equally  true  and  equally 
capable  of  demonstration ;  and  that  is, 
that  this  war  was  begun,  has  been  con 
tinued,  and  is  now  prosecuted,  for  the 
great  and  leading  purpose  of  the  acqui 
sition  of  new  territory,  out  of  which  to 
bring  new  States,  with  their  Mexican 
population,  into  this  our  Union  of  the 
United  States. 

If  unavowed  at  first,  this  purpose  did 
not  remain  unavowed  long.  However 
often  it  may  be  said  that  we  did  not  go 
to  war  for  conquest, 

"  credat  Judaeus  Apella, 
Nonego," 

yet  the  moment  we  get  possession  of 
territory  we  must  retain  it  and  make  it 
our  own.  Now  I  think  that  this  origi 
nal  object  has  not  been  changed,  has  not 
been  varied.  Sir,  I  think  it  exists  in 
the  eyes  of  those  who  originally  contem 
plated  it,  and  who  began  the  war  for  it, 
as  plain,  as  attractive  to  them,  and  from 
which  they  no  more  avert  their  eyes  now 
than  they  did  then  or  have  done  at  any 
time  since.  We  have  compelled  a  treaty 
of  cession ;  we  know  in  our  consciences 
that  it  is  compelled.  We  use  it  as  an 
instrument  and  an  agency,  in  conjunc 
tion  with  other  instruments  and  other 
agencies  of  a  more  formidable  and  de 
structive  character,  to  enforce  the  ces 
sion  of  Mexican  territory,  to  acquire 
territory  for  new  States  to  be  added  to 
this  Union.  We  know,  every  intelli 
gent  man  knows,  that  there  is  no  stronger 
desire  in  the  breast  of  a  Mexican  citizen 
than  to  retain  the  territory  which  belongs 
to  the  republic.  We  know  that  the  Mex 
ican  people  will  part  with  it,  if  part  they 
must,  with  regret,  with  pangs  of  sorrow. 
That  we  know ;  we  know  it  is  all  forced ; 
and  therefore,  because  we  know  it  must 
be  forced,  because  we  know  that  (whether 


the  government,  which  we  consider  our 
creature,  do  or  do  not  agree  to  it)  the 
Mexican  people  will  never  accede  to  the 
terms  of  this  treaty  but  through  the  im 
pulse  of  absolute  necessity,  and  the  im 
pression  made  upon  them  by  absolute 
and  irresistible  force,  therefore  we  pur 
pose  to  overwhelm  them  with  another 
army.  We  purpose  to  raise  another 
army  of  ten  thousand  regulars  and 
twenty  thousand  volunteers,  and  to  pour 
them  in  and  upon  the  Mexican  people. 

Now,  Sir,  I  should  be  happy  to  agree, 
notwithstanding  all  this  tocsin,  and  all 
this  cry  of  all  the  Semproniuses  in  the 
land,  that  their  "  voices  are  still  for  war," 
—  I  should  be  happy  to  agree,  and  sub 
stantially  I  do  agree,  to  the  opinion  of 
the  Senator  from  South  Carolina.  I 
think  I  have  myself  uttered  the  senti 
ment,  within  a  fortnight,  to  the  same 
effect,  that,  after  all,  the  war  with  Mexico 
is  substantially  over,  that  there  can  be  no 
more  fighting.  In  the  present  state  of 
things,  my  opinion  is  that  the  people  of 
this  country  will  not  sustain  the  war. 
They  will  not  go  for  its  heavy  expenses ; 
they  will  not  find  any  gratification  in 
putting  the  bayonet  to  the  throats  of 
the  Mexican  people.  For  my  part,  I 
hope  the  ten  regiment  bill  will  never  be 
come  a  law.  Three  wrecks  ago  I  should 
have  entertained  that  hope  with  the  ut 
most  confidence ;  events  instruct  me  to 
abate  my  confidence.  I  still  hope  it  will 
not  pass. 

And  here,  I  dare  say,  I  shall  be  called 
by  some  a  "  Mexican  Whig."  The  man 
who  can  stand  up  here  and  say  that  he 
hopes  that  what  the  administration  pro 
jects,  and  the  further  prosecution  of  the 
war  with  Mexico  requires,  may  not  be 
carried  into  effect,  must  be  an  enemy  to 
his  country,  or  what  gentlemen  have 
considered  the  same  thing,  an  enemy  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  his  administration  and  his  party.  He 
is  a  Mexican.  Sir,  I  think  very  badly 
of  the  Mexican  character,  high  and  low, 
out  and  out ;  but  names  do  not  terrify 
me.  Besides,  if  I  have  suffered  in  this 
respect,  if  I  have  rendered  myself  sub 
ject  to  the  reproaches  of  these  stipendiary 
presses,  these  hired  abusers  of  the  motives 


554 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


of  public  men,  I  have  the  honor,  on  this 
occasion,  to  be  in  very  respectable  com 
pany.  In  the  reproachful  sense  of  that 
term,  I  don't  know  a  greater  Mexican 
in  this  body  than  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Michigan,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

MR.  CASS.  Will  the  gentleman  be  good 
enough  to  explain  what  sort  of  a  Mexican 
I  am? 

On  the  resumption  of  the  bill  in  the 
Senate  the  other  day,  the  gentleman  told 
us  that  its  principal  object  was  to  frighten 
Mexico;  it  would  touch  his  humanity 
too  much  to  hurt  her !  He  would  fright 
en  her  — 

MR.  CASS.  Does  the  gentleman  affirm 
that  I  said  that  1 

Yes;  twice. 

MR.  CASS.  No,  Sir,  I  beg  your  pardon, 
I  did  not  say  it.  I  did  not  say  it  would 
touch  my  humanity  to  hurt  her. 

Be  it  so. 

MR.  CASS.  Will  the  honorable  Senator 
allow  me  to  repeat  my  statement  of  the  ob 
ject  of  the  bill  ?  I  said  it  was  twofold  : 
first,  that  it  would  enable  us  to  prosecute 
the  war,  if  necessary ;  and,  second,  that  it 
would  show  Mexico  we  were  prepared  to 
do  so ;  and  thus,  by  its  moral  effect,  would 
induce  her  to  ratify  the  treaty. 

The  gentleman  said,  that  the  princi 
pal  object  of  the  bill  was  to  frighten 
Mexico,  and  that  this  would  be  more 
humane  than  to  harm  her. 

MR.  CASS.     That's  true. 

Well,  Sir,  the  remarkable  character 
istic  of  that  speech,  that  which  makes  it 
so  much  a  Mexican  speech,  is,  that  the 
gentleman  spoke  it  in  the  hearing  of 
Mexico,  as  well  as  in  the  hearing  of  this 
Senate.  We  are  accused  here,  because 
what  we  say  is  heard  by  Mexico,  and 
Mexico  derives  encouragement  from  what 
is  said  here.  And  yet  the  honorable 
member  comes  forth  and  tells  Mexico 
that  the  principal  object  of  the  bill  is  to 
frighten  her!  The  words  have  passed 
along  the  wires ;  they  are  on  the  Gulf, 
and  are  floating  away  to  Vera  Cruz ;  and 
when  they  get  there,  they  will  signify  to 
Mexico,  "  After  all,  ye  good  Mexicans, 


my  principal  object  is  to  frighten  you; 
and  to  the  end  that  you  may  not  be 
frightened  too  much,  I  have  given  you 
this  indication  of  my  purpose." 

But,  Sir,  in  any  view  of  this  case,  in 
any  view  of  the  proper  policy  of  this 
government,  to  be  pursued  according  to 
any  man's  apprehension  and  judgment, 
where  is  the  necessity  for  this  augmenta 
tion,  by  regiments,  of  the  military  force 
of  the  country?  I  hold  in  my  hand  here 
a  note,  which  I  suppose  to  be  substan 
tially  correct,  of  the  present  military 
force  of  the  United  States.  I  cannot 
answer  for  its  entire  accuracy,  but  I  be 
lieve  it  to  be  substantially  according  to 
fact.  We  have  twenty-five  regiments  of 
regular  troops,  of  various  arms;  if  full, 
they  would  amount  to  28,960  rank  and 
file,  and  including  officers  to  30,296  men. 
These,  with  the  exception  of  six  or  seven 
hundred  men,  are  now  all  out  of  the 
United  States  and  in  field  service  in 
Mexico,  or  en  route  to  Mexico.  These 
regiments  are  not  full;  casualties  and 
the  climate  have  sadly  reduced  their 
numbers.  If  the  recruiting  service  were 
now  to  yield  ten  thousand  men,  it  would 
not  more  than  fill  up  these  regiments,  so 
that  every  brigadier  and  colonel  and  cap 
tain  should  have  his  appropriate  and  his 
full  command.  Here  is  a  call,  then,  on 
the  country  now  for  the  enlistment  of 
ten  thousand  men,  to  fill  up  the  regi 
ments  in  the  foreign  service  of  the 
United  States. 

I  understand,  Sir,  that  there  is  a  re 
port  from  General  Scott;  from  General 
Scott,  a  man  who  has  performed  the 
most  brilliant  campaign  on  recent  mili 
tary  record,  a  man  who  has  warred 
against  the  enemy,  warred  against  the 
climate,  warred  against  a  thousand  un- 
propitious  circumstances,  and  has  car 
ried  the  flag  of  his  country  to  the  capital 
of  the  enemy,  honorably,  proudly,  hu 
manely,  to  his  own  permanent  honor, 
and  the  great  military  credit  of  his  coun 
try  ,  —  General  Scott ;  and  where  is  he  ? 
At  Puebla!  at  Puebla,  undergoing  an 
inquiry  before  his  inferiors  in  rank,  and 
other  persons  without  military  rank; 
while  the  high  powers  he  has  exercised, 
and  exercised  with  so  much  distinction, 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


555 


are  transferred  to  another,  I  do  not  say 
to  one  unworthy  of  them,  but  to  one  in 
ferior  in  rank,  station,  and  experience  to 
himself. 

But  General  Scott  reports,  as  I  un 
derstand,  that,  in  February,  there  were 
twenty  thousand  regular  troops  under 
his  command  and  en  route,  and  we  have 
thirty  regiments  of  volunteers  for  the 
war.  If  full,  this  would  make  thirty- 
four  thousand  men,  or,  including  officers, 
thirty-five  thousand.  So  that,  if  the  regi 
ments  were  full,  there  is  at  this  moment 
a  number  of  troops,  regular  and  volun 
teer,  of  not  less  than  fifty-five  or  sixty 
thousand  men,  including  recruits  on  the 
way.  And  with  these  twenty  thousand 
men  in  the  field,  of  regular  troops,  there 
were  also  ten  thousand  volunteers;  mak 
ing,  of  regulars  and  volunteers  under 
General  Scott,  thirty  thousand  men. 
The  Senator  from  Michigan  knows  these 
things  better  than  I  do,  but  I  believe  this 
is  very  nearly  the  fact.  Now  all  these 
troops  are  regularly  officered ;  there  is  no 
deficiency,  in  the  line  or  in  the  staff,  of 
officers.  They  are  all  full.  Where 
there  is  any  deficiency  it  consists  of 
men. 

Now,  Sir,  there  may  be  a  plausible 
reason  for  saying  that  there  is  difficulty 
in  recruiting  at  home  for  the  supply  of 
deficiency  in  the  volunteer  regiments. 
It  may  be  said  that  volunteers  choose  to 
enlist  under  officers  of  their  own  knowl 
edge  and  selection;  they  do  not  incline 
to  enlist  as  individual  volunteers,  to  join 
regiments  abroad,  under  officers  of  whom 
they  know  nothing.  There  may  be  some 
thing  in  that;  but  pray  what  conclusion 
does  it  lead  to,  if  not  to  this,  that  all 
these  regiments  must  moulder  away,  by 
casualties  or  disease,  until  the  privates 
are  less  in  number  than  the  officers 
themselves. 

But  however  that  may  be  with  respect 
to  volunteers,  in  regard  to  recruiting  for 
the  regular  service,  in  filling  up  the  regi 
ments  by  pay  and  bounties  according  to 
existing  laws,  or  new  laws,  if  new  ones 
are  necessary,  there  is  no  reason  on  earth 
why  we  should  now  create  five  hundred 
new  officers,  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
ten  thousand  more  men.  The  officers 


are  already  there;  in  that  respect  there 
is  no  deficiency.  All  that  is  wanted  is 
men,  and  there  is  place  for  the  men; 
and  I  suppose  no  gentleman,  here  or 
elsewhere,  thinks  that  recruiting  will  go 
on  faster  than  would  be  necessary  to  ob 
tain  men  to  fill  up  the  deficiencies  in  the 
regiments  abroad. 

But  now,  Sir,  what  do  we  want  of  a 
greater  force  than  we  have  in  Mexico? 
I  am  not  saying,  What  do  we  want  of  a 
force  greater  than  we  can  supply?  but, 
What  is  the  object  of  bringing  these 
new  regiments  into  the  field?  What  do 
we  propose?  There  is  no  army  to  fight. 
I  suppose  there  are  not  five  hundred 
men  under  arms  in  any  part  of  Mexico ; 
probably  not  half  that  number,  except 
in  one  place.  Mexico  is  prostrate.  It 
is  not  the  government  that  resists  us. 
Why,  it  is  notorious  that  the  government 
of  Mexico  is  on  our  side,  that  it  is  an  in 
strument  by  which  we  hope  to  establish 
such  a  peace,  and  accomplish  such  a 
treaty,  as  we  like.  As  far  as  I  under 
stand  the  matter,  the  government  of 
Mexico  owes  its  life  and  breath  and 
being  to  the  support  of  our  arms,  and 
to  the  hope,  I  do  not  say  how  inspired, 
that  somehow  or  other,  and  at  no  dis 
tant  period,  she  will  have  the  pecuniary 
means  of  carrying  it  on,  from  our  three 
millions,  or  our  twelve  millions,  or  from 
some  of  our  other  millions. 

What  do  we  propose  to  do,  then,  with 
these  thirty  regiments  which  it  is  de 
signed  to  throw  into  Mexico?  Are  we 
going  to  cut  the  throats  of  her  people? 
Are  we  to  thrust  the  sword  deeper  and 
deeper  into  the  ' '  vital  parts ' '  of  Mexico  ? 
What  is  it  proposed  to  do?  Sir,  I  can 
see  no  object  in  it;  and  yet,  while  we 
are  pressed  and  urged  to  adopt  this 
proposition  to  raise  ten  and  twenty 
regiments,  we  are  told,  and  the  public 
is  told,  and  the  public  believes,  that  we 
are  on  the  verge  of  a  safe  and  an  hon 
orable  peace.  Every  one  looks  every 
morning  for  tidings  of  a  confirmed  peace, 
or  of  confirmed  hopes  of  peace.  We 
gather  it  from  the  administration,  and 
from  every  organ  of  the  administration 
from  Dan  to  Beersheba.  And  yet  war 
like  preparations,  the  incurring  of  ex- 


556 


OBJECTS   OF  THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 


penses,  the  imposition  of  new  charges 
upon  the  treasury,  are  pressed  here,  as 
if  peace  were  not  in  all  our  thoughts,  at 
least  not  in  any  of  our  expectations. 

Now,  Sir,  I  propose  to  hold  a  plain 
talk  to-day;  and  I  say  that,  according  to 
my  best  judgment,  the  object  of  the  bill 
is  patronage,  office,  the  gratification  of 
friends.  This  very  measure  for  raising 
ten  regiments  creates  four  or  five  hun 
dred  officers;  colonels,  subalterns,  and 
not  them  only,  for  for  all  these  I  feel 
some  respect,  but  there  are  also  pay 
masters,  contractors,  persons  engaged  in 
the  transportation  service,  commissaries, 
even  down  to  sutlers,  et  id  genus  omne, 
people  who  handle  the  public  money 
without  facing  the  foe,  one  and  all  of 
whom  are  true  descendants,  or  if  not, 
true  representatives,  of  Ancient  Pistol, 
who  said, 

"  I  shall  sutler  be 
Unto  the  camp,  and  profits  will  accrue." 

Sir,  I  hope,  with  no  disrespect  for  the 
applicants,  and  the  aspirants,  and  the 
patriots  (and  among  them  are  some  sin 
cere  patriots)  who  would  fight  for  their 
country,  and  those  others  who  are  not 
ready  to  fight,  but  who  are  willing  to  be 
paid,  —  with  due  respect  for  all  of  them 
according  to  their  several  degrees  and 
their  merits,  I  hope  they  will  all  be  dis 
appointed.  I  hope  that,  as  the  pleasant 
season  advances,  the  whole  may  find  it 
for  their  interest  to  place  themselves,  of 
mild  mornings,  in  the  cars,  and  take 
their  destination  to  their  respective 
places  of  honorable  private  occupation 
and  of  civil  employment.  They  have 
my  good  wishes  that  they  may  find  the 
way  to  their  homes  from  the  Avenue  and 
the  Capitol,  and  from  the  purlieus  of  the 
President's  house,  in  good  health  them 
selves,  and  that  they  may  find  their  fam 
ilies  all  very  happy  to  receive  them. 

But,  Sir,  to  speak  more  seriously,  this 
war  was  waged  for  the  object  of  creating 
new  States,  on  the  southern  frontier  of 
the  United  States,  out  of  Mexican  terri 
tory,  and  with  such  population  as  could 
be  found  resident  thereupon.  I  have 
opposed  this  object.  I  am  against  all  ac 
cessions  of  territory  to  form  new  States. 
And  this  is  no  matter  of  sentimentality, 


which  I  am  to  parade  before  mass  meet 
ings  or  before  my  constituents  at  home. 
It  is  rifct  a  matter  with  me  of  declama 
tion,  or  of  regret,  or  of  expressed  repug 
nance.  It  is  a  matter  of  firm,  unchange 
able  purpose.  I  yield  nothing  to  the 
force  of  circumstances  that  have  oc 
curred,  or  that  I  can  consider  as  likely 
to  occur.  And  therefore  I  say,  Sir, 
that,  if  I, were  asked  to-day  whether, 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  I  would  take  a 
treaty  for  adding  two  new  States  to  the 
Union  on  our  southern  border,  I  would 
say,  No  !  distinctly,  No !  And  I  wish 
every  man  in  the  United  States  to  un 
derstand  that  to  be  my  judgment  and 
my  purpose. 

I  said  upon  our  southern  border,  be 
cause  the  present  proposition  takes  that 
locality.  I  would  say  the  same  of  the 
western,  the  northeastern,  or  of  any 
other  border.  I  resist  to-day,  and  for 
ever,  and  to  the  end,  any  proposition 
to  add  any  foreign  territory,  south  or 
west,  north  or  east,  to  the  States  of  this 
Union,  as  they  are  constituted  and  held 
together  under  the  Constitution.  I  do 
not  want  the  colonists  of  England  on 
the  north;  and  as  little  do  I  want  the 
population  of  Mexico  on  the  south.  I 
resist  and  reject  all,  and  all  with  equal 
resolution.  Therefore  I  say,  that,  if  the 
question  were  put  to  me  to-day,  whether 
I  would  take  peace  under  the  present 
state  of  the  country,  distressed  as  it  is, 
during  the  existence  of  a  war  odious  as 
this  is,  under  circumstances  so  afflictive 
as  now  exist  to  humanity,  and  so  dis 
turbing  to  the  business  of  those  whom  I 
represent,  —  I  say  still,  if  it  were  put  to 
me  whether  I  would  have  peace,  with 
new  States,  I  would  say,  No  !  no  !  And 
that  because,  Sir,  in  my  judgment,  there 
is  no  necessity  of  being  driven  into  that 
dilemma.  Other  gentlemen  think  dif 
ferently.  I  hold  no  man's  conscience; 
but  I  mean  to  make  a  clean  breast  of  it 
myself;  and  I  protest  that  I  see  no  rea 
son,  I  believe  there  is  none,  why  we 
cannot  obtain  as  safe  a  peace,  as  honor 
able  and  as  prompt  a  peace,  without  ter 
ritory  as  with  it.  The  two  things  are 
separable.  There  is  no  necessary  con 
nection  between  them.  Mexico  does  not 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


557 


wish  us  to  take  her  territory,  while  she 
receives  our  money.  Far  from  it.  She 
yields  her  assent,  if  she  yields  it  at  all, 
reluctantly,  and  we  all  know  it.  It  is 
the  result  of  force,  and  there  is  no  man 
here  who  does  not  know  that.  And  let 
me  say,  Sir,  that,  if  ^this  Trist  paper 
shall  finally  be  rejected  in  Mexico,  it  is 
most  likely  to  be  because  those  who  un 
der  our  protection  hold  the  power  there 
cannot  persuade  the  Mexican  Congress 
or  people  to  agree  to  this  cession  of  ter 
ritory.  The  thing  most  likely  to  break 
up  what  we  now  expect  to  take  place  is 
the  repugnance  of  the  Mexican  people  to 
part  with  their  territory.  They  would 
prefer  to  keep  their  territory,  and  that 
we  should  keep  our  money;  as  I  prefer 
we  should  keep  our  money,  and  they 
their  territory.  We  shall  see.  I  pretend 
to  no  powers  of  prediction.  I  do  not 
know  what  may  happen.  The  times  are 
full  of  strange  events.  But  I  think  it 
certain  that,  if  the  treaty  which  has 
gone  to  Mexico  shall  fail  to  be  ratified, 
it  will  be  because  of  the  aversion  of  the 
Mexican  Congress,  or  the  Mexican  peo 
ple,  to  cede  the  territory,  or  any  part  of 
it,  belonging  to  their  republic. 

I  have  said  that  I  would  rather  have 
no  peace  for  the  present,  than  have  a 
peace  which  brings  territory  for  new 
States;  and  the  reason  is,  that  we  shall 
get  peace  as  soon  without  territory  as 
with  it,  more  safe,  more  durable,  and 
vastly  more  honorable  to  us,  the  great 
republic  of  the  world. 

But  we  hear  gentlemen  say,  We  must 
have  some  territory,  the  people  demand 
it.  I  deny  it ;  at  least,  I  see  no  proof  of 
it  whatever.  I  do  not  doubt  that  there 
are  individuals  of  an  enterprising  char 
acter,  disposed  to  emigrate,  who  know 
nothing  about  New  Mexico  but  that  it 
is  far  off,  and  nothing  about  California 
but  that  it  is  still  farther  off,  who  are 
tired  of  the  dull  pursuits  of  agriculture 
and  of  civil  life ;  that  there  are  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  such  persons  to  whom 
whatsoever  is  new  and  distant  is  attrac 
tive.  They  feel  the  spirit  of  borderers; 
and  the  spirit  of  a  borderer,  I  take  it,  is 
to  be  tolerably  contented  with  his  condi 
tion  where  he  is,  until  somebody  goes  to 


regions  beyond  him ;  and  then  he  is  all 
eagerness  to  take  up  his  traps  and  go 
still  farther  than  he  who  has  thus  got  in 
advance  of  him.  With  such  men  the 
desire  to  emigrate  is  an  irresistible  pas 
sion.  At  Least  so  thought  that  saga 
cious  observer  of  human  nature,  M.  de 
Talleyrand,  when  he  travelled  in  this 
country  in  1794. 

But  I  say  I  do  not  find  anywhere  any 
considerable  and  respectable  body  of 
persons  who  want  more  territory,  and 
such  territory.  Twenty-four  of  us  last 
year  in  this  house  voted  against  the 
prosecution  of  the  war  for  territory,  be 
cause  we  did  not  want  it,  both  Southern 
and  Northern  men.  I  believe  the  South 
ern  gentlemen  who  concurred  in  that 
vote  found  themselves,  even  when  they 
had  gone  against  what  might  be  sup 
posed  to  be  local  feelings  and  partiali 
ties,  sustained  on  the  general  policy  of 
not  seeking  territory,  and  by  the  acqui 
sition  of  territory  bringing  into  our  pol 
itics  certain  embarrassing  and  embroil 
ing  questions  and  considerations.  I  do 
not  learn  that  they  suffered  from  the 
advocacy  of  such  a  sentiment.  I  believe 
they  were  supported  in  it;  and  I  believe 
that  through  the  greater  part  of  the 
South,  and  even  of  the  Southwest,  there 
is  no  prevalent  opinion  in  favor  of  ac 
quiring  territory,  and  such  territory,  and 
of  the  augmentation  of  our  population 
by  such  an  accession.  And  such,  I 
need  not  say,  is,  if  not  the  undivided, 
the  preponderating  sentiment  of  all  the 
North. 

But  it  is  said  we  must  take  territoiy 
for  the  sake  of  peace.  We  must  take 
territory.  It  is  the  will  of  the  Presi 
dent.  If  we  do  not  now  take  what  he 
offers,  we  may  fare  worse.  Mr.  Polk 
will  take  no  less,  that  he  is  fixed  upon. 
He  is  immovable.  He — has  —  put  — 
down  —  his  —  foot!  Well,  Sir,  he  put 
it  down  upon  "fifty-four  forty,"  but  it 
did  n't  stay.  I  speak  of  the  President, 
as  of  all  Presidents,  without  disrespect. 
I  know  of  no  reason  why  his  opinion 
and  his  will,  his  purpose,  declared  to  be 
final,  should  control  us,  any  more  than 
our  purpose,  from  equally  conscientious 
motives,  and  under  as  high  responsibili- 


558 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


ties,  should  control  him.  We  think  he 
is  firm,  and  will  not  be  moved.  I  should 
be  sorry,  Sir,  very  sorry  indeed,  that 
we  should  entertain  more  respect  for  the 
firmness  of  the  individual  at  the  head  of 
the  government  than  we  entertain  for 
our  own  firmness.  He  stands  out  against 
us.  Do  we  fear  to  stand  out  against 
him?  For  one,  I  do  not.  It  appears  to 
me  to  be  a  slavish  doctrine.  For  one,  I 
am  willing  to  meet  the  issue,  and  go 
to  the  people  all  over  this  broad  land. 
Shall  we  take  peace  without  new  States, 
or  refuse  peace  without  new  States?  I 
will  stand  upon  that,  and  trust  the  peo 
ple.  And  I  do  that  because  I  think  it 
right,  and  because  I  have  no  distrust  of 
the  people.  I  am  not  unwilling  to  put 
it  to  their  sovereign  decision  and  arbi 
tration.  I  hold  this  to  be  a  question 
vital,  permanent,  elementary,  in  the  fu 
ture  prosperity  of  the  country  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  Constitution ;  and  I 
am  willing  to  trust  that  question  to  the 
people.  I  prefer  that  it  should  go  to 
them,  because,  if  what  I  take  to  be  a 
great  constitutional  principle,  or  what  is 
essential  to  its  maintenance,  is  to  be 
broken  down,  let  it  be  the  act  of  the 
people  themselves ;  it  shall  never  be  my 
act.  I,  therefore,  do  not  distrust  the 
people.  I  am  willing  to  take  their  sen 
timent,  from  the  Gulf  to  the  British 
Provinces,  and  from  the  ocean  to  the 
Missouri:  Will  you  continue  the  war  for 
territory,  to  be  purchased,  after  all,  at 
an  enormous  price,  a  price  a  thousand 
times  the  value  of  all  its  purchases,  or 
take  peace,  contenting  yourselves  with 
the  honor  we  have  reaped  by  the  mili 
tary  achievements  of  the  army?  Will 
you  take  peace  without  territory,  and 
preserve  the  integrity  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  country?  I  am  entirely  will 
ing  to  stand  upon  that  question.  I  will 
therefore  take  the  issue:  Peace,  with  no 
new  States,  keeping  our  own  money  our 
selves,  or  war  till  new  States  shall  be  ac 
quired,  and  vast  sums  paid.  That  is  the 
true  issue.  I  am  willing  to  leave  that 
before  the  people  and  to  the  people,  be 
cause  it  is  a  question  for  themselves.  If 
they  support,  me  and  think  with  me, 
very  well.  If  otherwise,  if  they  will 


have  territory  and  add  new  States  to 
the  Union,  let  them  do  so;  and  let  them 
be  the -artificers  of  their  own  fortune, 
for  good  or  for  evil. 

But,  Sir,  we  tremble  before  executive 
power.  The  truth  cannot  be  concealed. 
We  tremble  before  executive  power! 
Mr.  Polk  will  take  no  less  than  this.  If 
we  do  not  take  this,  the  king's  anger 
may  kindle,  and  he  will  give  us  what  is 
worse. 

But  now,  Sir,  who  and  what  is  Mr. 
Polk?  I  speak  of  him  with  no  manner 
of  disrespect.  I  mean,  thereby,  only  to 
ask  who  and  what  is  the  President  of 
the  United  States  for  the  current  mo 
ment.  He  is  in  the  last  year  of  his  ad 
ministration.  Formally,  officially,  it  can 
only  be  drawn  out  till  the  fourth  of 
March,  while  really  and  substantially  we 
know  that  two  short  months  will,  or  may, 
produce  events  that  will  render  the  dura 
tion  of  that  official  term  of  very  little  im 
portance.  We  are  on  the  eve  of  a  Presi 
dential  election.  That  machinery  which 
is  employed  to  collect  public  opinion  or 
party  opinion  will  be  put  in  operation  two 
months  hence.  We  shall  see  its  result. 
It  may  be  that  the  present  incumbent  of 
the  Presidential  office  will  be  again  pre 
sented  to  his  party  friends  and  admirers 
for  their  suffrages  for  the  next  Presiden 
tial  term.  I  do  not  say  how  probable  or 
improbable  this  is.  Perhaps  it  is  not 
entirely  probable.  Suppose  this  not  to 
be  the  result,  what  then?  Why,  then 
Mr.  Polk  becomes  as  absolutely  insig 
nificant  as  any  respectable  man  among 
the  public  men  of  the  United  States. 
Honored  in  private  life,  valued  for  his 
private  character,  respectable,  never  em 
inent,  in  public  life,  he  will,  from  the 
moment  a  new  star  arises,  have  just  as 
little  influence  as  you  or  I;  and,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  that  certainly  is  little 
enough. 

Sir,  political  partisans,  and  aspirants, 
and  office-seekers,  are  not  sunflowers. 
They  do  not 

u  turn  to  their  god  when  he  sets 
The  same  look  which  they  turned  when  he  rose." 

No,  Sir,  if  the  respectable  gentleman 
now  at  the  head  of  the  government  be 


OBJECTS  OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


559 


nominated,  there  will  be  those  who  will 
commend  his  consistency,  who  will  be 
bound  to  maintain  it,  for  the  interest  of 
his  party  friends  will  require  it.  It  will 
be  done.  If  otherwise,  who  is  there  in 
the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land  that  will  care  for  the  consistency 
of  the  present  incumbent  of  the  office? 
There  will  then  be  new  objects.  "  Man 
ifest  destiny"  will  have  pointed  out 
some  other  man.  Sir,  the  eulogies  are 
now  written,  the  commendations  are 
already  elaborated.  I  do  not  say  every 
thing  fulsome,  but  every  thing  pane 
gyrical,  has  already  been  written  out, 
with  blanks  for  names,  to  be  filled 
when  the  convention  shall  adjourn. 
When  ' '  manifest  destiny  ' '  shall  be  un 
rolled,  all  these  strong  panegyrics,  wher 
ever  they  may  light,  made  beforehand, 
laid  up  in  pigeon-holes,  studied,  framed, 
emblazoned,  and  embossed,  will  all  come 
out ;  and  then  there  will  be  found  to  be 
somebody  in  the  United  States  whose 
merits  have  been  strangely  overlooked, 
marked  out  by  Providence,  a  kind  of 
miracle,  while  all  will  wonder  that  no 
body  ever  thought  of  him  before,  as  a 
fit,  and  the  only  fit,  man  to  be  at  the 
head  of  this  great  republic ! 

I  shrink  not,  therefore,  from  any  thing 
that  I  feel  to  be  my  duty,  from  any  ap 
prehension  of  the  importance  and  impos 
ing  dignity,  and  the  power  of  will,  as 
cribed  to  the  present  incumbent  of  office. 
But  I  wish  we  possessed  that  power  of 
will.  I  wish  wre  had  that  firmness.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  wish  we  had  adherence.  I  wish  we 
could  gather  something  from  the  spirit 
of  our  brave  forces,  who  have  met  the 
enemy  under  circumstances  most  adverse 
and  have  stood  the  shock.  I  wish  we 
could  imitate  Zachary  Taylor  in  his  biv 
ouac  on  the  field  of  Buena  Vista.  He 
said  he  ' '  would  remain  for  the  night ; 
he  would  feel  the  enemy  in  the  morning, 
and  try  his  position."  I  wish,  before 
we  surrender,  we  could  make  up  our 
minds  to  "fed  the  enemy,  and  try  his 
position,"  and  I  think  we  should  find 
him,  as  Taylor  did,  under  the  early  sun, 
on  his  way  to  San  Luis  Potosi.  That  is 
my  judgment. 

But,  Sir,  I  come  to  the  all-absorbing 


question,  more  particularly,  of  the  crea 
tion  of  New  States. 

Some  years  before  I  entered  public 
life,  Louisiana  had  been  obtained  under 
the  treaty  with  France.  Shortly  after, 
Florida  was  obtained  under  the  treaty 
with  Spain.  These  two  countries  were 
situated  on  our  frontier,  and  command 
ed  the  outlets  of  the  great  rivers  which 
flow  into  the  Gulf.  As  I  have  had  oc 
casion  to  say,  in  the  first  of  these  in 
stances,  the  President  of  the  United 
States ]  supposed  that  an  amendment 
of  the  Constitution  was  required.  He 
acted  upon  that  supposition.  Mr.  Madi 
son  was  Secretary  of  State,  and,  upon 
the  suggestion  of  the  President,  pro 
posed  that  the  proper  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  should  be  submitted,  to 
bring  Louisiana  into  the  Union.  Mr. 
Madison  drew  it,  and  submitted  it  to 
Mr.  Adams,  as  I  have  understood.  Mr. 
Madison  did  not  go  upon  any  general 
idea  that  new  States  might  be  admitted; 
he  did  not  proceed  to  a  general  amend 
ment  of  the  Constitution  in  that  respect. 
The  amendment  which  he  proposed  and 
submitted  to  Mr.  Adams  was  a  simple 
declaration,  by  a  new  article,  that  "  the 
Province  of  Louisiana  is  hereby  declared 
to  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  United 
States."  But  public  opinion,  seeing  the 
great  importance  of  the  acquisition,  took 
a  turn  favorable  to  the  affirmation  of  the 
power.  The  act  was  acquiesced  in,  and 
Louisiana  became  a  part  of  the  Union, 
without  any  amendment  of  the  Consti 
tution. 

On  the  example  of  Louisiana,  Florida 
was  admitted. 

Now,  Sir,  I  consider  those  transactions 
as  passed,  settled,  legalized.  There  they 
stand  as  matters  of  political  history. 
They  are  facts  against  which  it  would 
be  idle  at  this  day  to  contend. 

My  first  agency  in  matters  of  this  kind 
was  upon  the  proposition  for  admitting 
Texas  into  this  Union.  That  I  thought 
it  my  duty  to  oppose,  upon  the  general 
ground  of  opposing  all  formation  of  new 
States  out  of  foreign  territory,  and,  I 
may  add,  and  I  ought  to  add  in  justice, 
of  States  in  which  slaves  were  to  be  rep- 
1  Mr.  Jefferson. 


560 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


resented  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  I  was  opposed  to  this  on  the 
ground  of  its  inequality.  It  happened 
to  me,  Sir,  to  be  called  upon  to  address 
a  political  meeting  in  New  York,  in 
1837,  soon  after  the  recognition  of  Texan 
Independence.  I  state  now,  Sir,  what 
I  have  often  stated  before,  that  no  man, 
from  the  first,  has  been  a  more  sincere 
well-wisher  to  the  government  and  the 
people  of  Texas  than  myself.  I  looked 
upon  the  achievement  of  their  indepen 
dence  in  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto  as  an 
extraordinary,  almost  a  marvellous,  in 
cident  in  the  affairs  of  mankind.  I 
was  among  the  first  disposed  to  ac 
knowledge  her  independence.  But  from 
the  first,  down  to  this  moment,  I  have 
opposed,  as  far  as  I  was  able,  the  an 
nexation  of  new  States  to  this  Union. 
I  stated  my  reasons  on  the  occasion  now 
referred  to,  in  language  which  I  have 
now  before  me,  and  which  I  beg  to  pre 
sent  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Webster  here  read  the  passage  from 
his  speech  at  Mblo's  Saloon,  New  York, 
which  will  be  found  in  a  previous  part 
of  this  work,  pages  429,  430,  beginning, 
"  But  it  cannot  be  disguised,  Gentlemen, 
that  a  desire,  or  an  intention,  is  already 
manifested  to  annex  Texas  to  the  United 
States." 

Well,  Sir,  for  a  few  years  I  held  a 
position  in  the  executive  administration 
of  the  government.  I  left  the  Depart 
ment  of  State  in  1843,  in  the  month  of 
May.  Within  a  month  after,  another 
(an  intelligent  gentleman,  for  whom  I 
cherished  a  high  respect,  and  who  came 
to  a  sad  and  untimely  end)  had  taken 
my  place,  I  had  occasion  to  know,  not 
officially,  but  from  circumstances,  that 
the  annexation  of  Texas  was  taken  up 
by  Mr.  Tyler's  administration  as  an  ad 
ministration  measure.  It  was  pushed, 
pressed,  insisted  on;  and  I  believe  the 
honorable  gentleman  to  whom  I  have 
referred  1  had  something  like  a  passion 
for  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose. 
And  I  am  afraid  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  2  at  that  time  suffered 
his  ardent  feelings  not  a  little  to  control 


1  Mr.  Upshur. 


2  Mr.  Tvler. 


his  more  prudent  judgment.  At  any 
rate,  I  saw,  in  1843,  that  annexation 
had  become  a  purpose  of  the  adminis 
tration.  I  was  not  in  Congress  nor  in 
public  life.  But,  seeing  this  state  of 
things,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  admon 
ish  the  country,  so  far  as  I  could,  of  the 
existence  of  that  purpose.  There  are 
gentlemen  at  the  North,  many  of  them, 
there  are  gentlemen  now  in  the  Capitol, 
who  know  that,  in  the  summer  of  1843, 
being  fully  persuaded  that  this  purpose 
was  embraced  with  zeal  and  determina 
tion  by  the  executive  department  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  I 
thought  it  my  duty,  and  asked  them 
to  concur  with  me  in  the  attempt,  to 
make  that  purpose  known  to  the  coun 
try.  I  conferred  with  gentlemen  of 
distinction  and  influence.  I  proposed 
means  for  exciting  public  attention  to 
the  question  of  annexation,  before  it 
should  have  become  a  party  question; 
for  I  had  learned  that,  when  any  topic 
becomes  a  party  question,  it  is  in  vain 
to  argue  upon  it. 

But  the  optimists  and  the  quietists, 
and  those  who  said,  All  things  are  well, 
and  let  all  things  alone,  discouraged, 
discountenanced,  and  repressed  any 
such  effort.  The  North,  they  said, 
could  take  care  of  itself;  the  country 
could  take  care  of  itself,  and  would  not 
sustain  Mr.  Tyler  in  his  project  of  an 
nexation.  When  the  time  should  come, 
they  said,  the  power  of  the  North  would 
be  felt,  and  would  be  found  sufficient  to 
resist  and  prevent  the  consummation  of 
the  measure.  And  I  could  now  refer  to 
paragraphs  and  articles  in  the  most  re 
spectable  and  leading  journals  of  the 
North,  in  which  it  was  attempted  to 
produce  the  impression  that  there  was 
no  danger;  there  could  be  no  addition 
of  new  States,  and  men  need  not  alarm 
themselves  about  that. 

I  was  not  in  Congress,  Sir,  when  the 
preliminary  resolutions,  providing  for 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  passed.  I 
only  know  that,  up  to  a  very  short 
period  before  the  passage  of  those  reso 
lutions,  the  impression  in  that  part  of 
the  country  of  which  I  have  spoken 
was,  that  no  such  measure  could  be 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


561 


adopted.  But  I  have  found,  in  the 
course  of  thirty  years'  experience,  that 
whatever  measures  the  executive  gov 
ernment  may  embrace  and  push  are 
quite  likely  to  succeed  in  the  end. 
There  is  always  a  giving  way  some 
where.  The  executive  government 
acts  with  uniformity,  with  steadiness, 
with  entire  unity  of  purpose.  And 
sooner  or  later,  often  enough,  and,  ac 
cording  to  rny  construction  of  our  his 
tory,  quite  too  often,  it  effects  its 
purposes.  In  this  way  it  becomes  the 
predominating  power  of  the  govern 
ment. 

Well,  Sir,  just  before  the  commence 
ment  of  the  present  administration,  the 
resolutions  for  the  annexation  of  Texas 
were  passed  in  Congress.  Texas  com 
plied  with  the  provisions  of  those  reso 
lutions,  and  was  here,  or  the  case  was 
here,  on  the  22d  day  of  December,  1845, 
for  her  final  admission  into  the  Union, 
as  one  of  the  States.  I  took  occasion 
then  to  say,  that  I  hoped  I  had  shown 
all  proper  regard  for  Texas ;  that  I  had 
been  certainly  opposed  to  annexation; 
that,  if  I  should  go  over  the  whole. mat 
ter  again,  I  should  have  nothing  new  to 
add;  that  I  had  acted,  all  along,  under 
the  unanimous  declaration  of  all  par 
ties,  and  of  the  legislature  of  Massa 
chusetts  ;  that  I  thought  there  must  be 
some  limit  to  the  extent  of  our  terri 
tories,  and  that  I  wished  this  country 
should  exhibit  to  the  world  the  ex 
ample  of  a  powerful  republic,  without 
greediness  and  hunger  of  empire.  And 
I  added,  that  while  I  held,  with  as  much 
faithfulness  as  any  citizen  of  the  coun 
try,  to  all  the  original  arrangements 
and  compromises  of  the  Constitution 
under  which  we  live,  I  never  could,  and 
I  never  should,  bring  myself  to  be  in 
favor  of  the  admission  of  any  States 
into  the  Union  as  slave-holding  States; 
and  I  might  have  added,  any  States  at 
all,  to  be  formed  out  of  territories  not 
now  belonging  to  us. 

Now,  as  I  have  said,  in  all  this  I 
acted  under  the  resolutions  of  the  State 
of  Massachusetts,  certainly  concurrent 
with  my  own  judgment,  so  often  re 
peated,  and  reaffirmed  by  the  unani- 


mous  consent  of  all  men  of  all  parties, 
that  I  could  not  well  go  through  the 
series,  pointing  out,  not  only  the  im 
policy,  but  the  unconstitutionality,  of 
such  annexation.  If  a  State  proposes 
to  come  into  the  Union,  and  to  come  in 
as  a  slave  State,  then  there  is  an  aug 
mentation  of  the  inequality  in  the  rep 
resentation  of  the  people ;  an  inequality 
already  existing,  with  which  I  do  not 
quarrel,  and  which  I  never  will  attempt 
to  alter,  but  shall  preserve  as  long  as  I 
have  a  vote  to  give,  or  any  voice  in  this 
government,  because  it  is  a  part  of  the 
original  compact.  Let  it  stand.  But 
then  there  is  another  consideration  of 
vastly  more  general  importance  even 
than  that;  more  general,  because  it 
affects  all  the  States,  free  and  slave- 
holding  ;  and  it  is,  that,  if  States 
formed  out  of  territories  thus  thinly 
populated  come  into  the  Union,  they 
necessarily  and  inevitably  break  up 
the  relation  existing  between  the  two 
branches  of  the  government,  and  de 
stroy  its  balance.  They  break  up  the 
intended  relation  between  the  Senate 
and  the  House  of  Representatives.  If 
you  bring  in  new  States,  any  State  that 
comes  in  must  have  two  Senators.  She 
may  come  in  with  fifty  or  sixty  thou 
sand  people,  or  more.  You  may  have, 
from  a  particular  State,  more  Senators 
than  you  have  Representatives.  Can 
any  thing  occur  to  disfigure  and  derange 
the  form  of  government  under  which 
wre  live  more  signally  than  that?  Here 
would  be  a  Senate  bearing  no  propor 
tion  to  the  people,  out  of  all  relation  to 
them,  by  the  addition  of  new  States; 
from  some  of  them  only  one  Repre 
sentative,  perhaps,  and  two  Senators, 
whereas  the  larger  States  may  have  ten, 
fifteen,  or  even  thirty  Representatives, 
and  but  two  Senators.  The  Senate, 
augmented  by  these  new  Senators  com 
ing  from  States  where  there  are  few  peo 
ple,  becomes  an  odious  oligarchy.  It 
holds  power  without  any  adequate  con 
stituency.  Sir,  it  is  but  "  borough- 
mongering"  upon  a  large  scale.  Now, 
I  do  not  depend  upon  theory;  I  ask  the 
Senate  and  the  country  to  look  at  facts, 
to  see  where  we  were  when  we  made  our 


562 


OBJECTS   OF  THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 


departure  three  years  ago,  and  where  we 
now  are ;  and  I  leave  it  to  the  imagina 
tion  to  conjecture  where  we  shall  be. 

We  admitted  Texas, — one  State  for 
the  present;  but,  Sir,  if  you  refer  to  the 
resolutions  providing  for  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  you  find  a  provision  that  it 
shall  be  in  the  power  of  Congress  here 
after  to  make  four  new  States  out  of 
Texan  territory.  Present  and  prospec- 
tively,  five  new  States,  with  ten  Senators, 
may  come  into  the  Union  out  of  Texas. 
Three  years  ago  we  did  this;  we  now 
propose  to  make  two  States.  Undoubt 
edly,  if  we  take,  as  the  President  recom 
mends,  New  Mexico  and  California, 
there  must  then  be  four  new  Senators. 
We  shall  then  have  provided,  in  these 
territories  out  of  the  United  States  along 
our  southern  borders,  for  the  creation 
of  States  enough  to  send  fourteen  Sen 
ators  into  this  chamber.  Now,  what 
will  be  the  relation  between  these  Sena 
tors  and  the  people  they  represent,  or  the 
States  from  which  they  come?  I  do  not 
understand  that  there  is  any  very  accu 
rate  census  of  Texas.  It  is  generally 
supposed  to  contain  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  persons.  I  doubt  whether 
it  contains  above  one  hundred  thousand. 

MR.  MANGUM.  It  contains  one  hundred 
and  forty-nine  thousand. 

My  honorable  friend  on  my  left  says, 
a  hundred  and  forty-nine  thousand.  I 
put  it  down,  then,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand.  Well,  Sir,  Texas  is  not  des 
tined,  probably,  to  be  a  country  of  dense 
population.  We  will  suppose  it  to  have 
at  the  present  time  a  population  of  near 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand.  New 
Mexico  may  have  sixty  or  seventy  thou 
sand  inhabitants;  say  seventy  thousand. 
In  California,  there  are  not  supposed  to 
be  above  twenty-five  thousand  men ;  but 
undoubtedly,  if  this  territory  should  be 
come  ours,  persons  from  Oregon,  and 
from  our  Western  States,  will  find  their 
way  to  San  Francisco,  where  there  is 
some  good  land,  and  we  may  suppose 
they  will  shortly  amount  to  sixty  or  sev 
enty  thousand.  We  will  put  them  down 
at  seventy  thousand.  Then  the  whole 
territory  in  this  estimate,  which  is  as 


high  as  any  man  puts  it,  will  contain 
two  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  per 
sons,  artd  they  will  send  us,  whenever 
we  ask  for  them,  fourteen  Senators;  a 
population  less  than  that  of  the  State 
of  Vermont,  and  not  the  eighth  part  of 
that  of  New  York.  Fourteen  Senators, 
and  not  as  many  people  as  Vermont  1 
and  no  more  people  than  New  Hamp 
shire  !  and  jiot  so  many  people  as  the 
good  State  of  New  Jersey ! 

But  then,  Sir,  Texas  claims  to  the 
line  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  if  it  be  her 
true  line,  why  then  of  course  she  absorbs 
a  considerable  part,  nay,  the  greater  part, 
of  the  population  of  what  is  now  called 
New  Mexico.  I  do  not  argue  the  ques 
tion  of  the  true  southern  or  western  line 
of  Texas ;  I  only  say,  that  it  is  apparent 
to  everybody  who  will  look  at  the  map, 
and  learn  any  thing  of  the  matter,  that 
New  Mexico  cannot  be  divided  by  this 
river,  the  Rio  Grande,  which  is  a  shal 
low,  fordable,  insignificant  stream,  creep 
ing  along  through  a  narrow  valley,  at 
the  base  of  enormous  mountains.  New 
Mexico  must  remain  together;  it  must 
be  a  State,  with  its  seventy  thousand 
people,  and  so  it  will  be;  and  so  will 
California. 

But  then,  Sir,  suppose  Texas  to  re 
main  a  unit,  and  but  one  State  for  the 
present;  still  we  shall  have  three  States, 
Texas,  New  Mexico,  and  California. 
We  shall  have  six  Senators,  then,  for 
less  than  three  hundred  thousand  peo 
ple.  We  shall  have  as  many  Senators 
for  three  hundred  thousand  people  in 
that  region  as  we  have  for  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  with  four  or 
five  millions  of  people ;  and  that  is  what 
we  call  an  equal  representation !  Is  not 
this  enormous?  Have  gentlemen  con 
sidered  this?  Have  they  looked  at  it? 
Are  they  willing  to  look  it  in  the  face, 
and  then  say  they  embrace  it?  I  trust, 
Sir,  the  people  will  look  at  it  and  con 
sider  it.  And  now  let  me  add,  that  this 
disproportion  can  never  be  diminished; 
it  must  remain  for  ever.  How  are  you 
going  to  diminish  it?  Why,  here  is 
Texas,  with  a  hundred  and  forty-nine 
thousand  people,  with  one  State.  Sup 
pose  that  population  should  flow  into 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


563 


Texas,  where  will  it  go?  Not  to  any 
dense  point,  but  to  be  spread  over  all 
that  region,  in  places  remote  from  the 
Gulf,  in  places  remote  from  what  is  now 
the  capital  of  Texas;  and  therefore,  as 
soon  as  there  are  in  other  portions  of 
Texas  people  enough  within  our  com 
mon  construction  of  the  Constitution  and 
our  practice  in  respect  to  the  admission 
of  States,  my  honorable  friend  from 
Texas l  will  have  a  new  State,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  he  has  chalked  it  out 
already. 

As  to  New  Mexico,  its  population  is 
not  likely  to  increase.  It  is  a  settled 
country ;  the  people  living  along  in  the 
bottom  of  the  valley  on  the  sides  of  a 
little  stream,  a  garter  of  land  only  on 
one  side  and  the  other,  filled  by  coarse 
landholders  and  miserable  peons.  It  can 
sustain,  not  only  under  this  cultivation, 
but  under  any  cultivation  that  our  Amer 
ican  race  would  ever  submit  to,  no  more 
people  than  are  there  now.  There  will, 
then,  be  two  Senators  for  sixty  thousand 
inhabitants  in  New  Mexico  to  the  end 
of  our  lives  and  to  the  end  of  the  lives 
of  our  children. 

And  how  is  it  with  California?  We 
propose  to  take  California,  from  the  forty- 
second  degree  of  north  latitude  down  to 
the  thirty-second.  We  propose  to  take 
ten  degrees  along  the  coast  of  the  Pacific. 
Scattered  along  the  coast  for  that  great 
distance  are  settlements  and  villages  and 
ports ;  and  in  the  rear  all  is  wilderness 
and  barrenness,  and  Indian  country. 
But  if,  just  about  San  Francisco,  and 
perhaps  Monterey,  emigrants  enough 
should  settle  to  make  up  one  State,  then 
the  people  five  hundred  miles  off  would 
have  another  State.  And  so  this  dis 
proportion  of  the  Senate  to  the  people 
will  go  on,  and  must  go  on,  and  we  can 
not  prevent  it. 

I  say,  Sir,  that,  according  to  my  con 
scientious  conviction,  we  are  now  fixing 
on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  its  frame  of  government,  a  mon 
strosity,  a  disfiguration,  an  enormity! 
$ir,  I  hardly  dare  trust  myself.  I  don't 
know  but  I  may  be  under  some  delusion. 
It  may  be  the  weakness  of  my  eyes  that 
i  Mr.  Rusk. 


forms  this  monstrous  apparition.  But, 
if  I  may  trust  myself,  if  I  can  persuade 
myself  that  I  am  in  my  right  mind,  then 
it  does  appear  to  me  that  we  in  this  Sen 
ate  have  been  and  are  acting,  and  are 
likely  to  be  acting  hereafter,  and  imme 
diately,  a  part  which  will  form  the  most 
remarkable  epoch  in  the  history  of  our 
country.  I  hold  it  to  be  enormous,  fla 
grant,  an  outrage  upon  all  the  principles 
of  popular  republican  government,  and 
on  the  elementary  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution  under  which  we  live,  and  M'hich 
we  have  sworn  to  support. 

But  then,  Sir,  what  relieves  the  case 
from  this  enormity?  What  is  our  reli 
ance  ?  Why,  it  is  that  we  stipulate  that 
these  new  States  shall  only  be  brought 
in  at  a  suitable  time.  And  pray,  what 
is  to  constitute  the  suitableness  of  time? 
Who  is  to  judge  of  it?  I  tell  you,  Sir, 
that  suitable  time  will  come  when  the 
preponderance  of  party  power  here  makes 
it  necessary  to  bring  in  new  States.  Be 
assured  it  will  be  a  suitable  time  when 
votes  are  wanted  in  this  Senate.  We 
have  had  some  little  experience  of  that. 
Texas  came  in  at  a  "  suitable  time,"  a 
very  suitable  time!  Texas  was  finally 
admitted  in  December,  1845.  My  friend 
near  me  here,  for  whom  I  have  a  great 
regard,  and  whose  acquaintance  I  have 
cultivated  with  pleasure,1  took  his  seat 
in  March,  1846,  with  his  colleague.  In 
July,  1846,  these  two  Texan  votes  turned 
the  balance  in  the  Senate,  and  over 
threw  the  tariff  of  1842,  in  my  judg 
ment  the  best  system  of  revenue  ever 
established  in  this  country.  Gentlemen 
on  the  opposite  side  think  otherwise. 
They  think  it  fortunate.  They  think 
that  was  a  suitable  time,  and  they  mean 
to  take  care  that  other  times  shall  be 
equally  suitable.  I  understand  it  per 
fectly  well.  That  is  the  difference  of 
opinion  between  me  and  these  honora 
ble  gentlemen.  To  their  policy,  their 
objects,  and  their  purposes  the  time  was 
suitable,  and  the  aid  was  efficient  and 
decisive. 

Sir,  in  1850  perhaps  a  similar  ques 
tion  may  be  agitated  here.  It  is  not 
likely  to  be  before  that  time,  but  agi- 
i  Mr.  Rusk. 


564 


OBJECTS   OF  THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 


tated  it  will  be  then,  unless  a  change 
in  the  administration  of  the  government 
shall  take  place.  According  to  my  ap 
prehension  ,  looking  at  general  results  as 
flowing  from  our  established  system  of 
commerce  and  revenue,  in  two  years 
from  this  time  we  shall  probably  be  en 
gaged  in  a  new  revision  of  our  system : 
in  the  work  of  establishing,  if  we  can,  a 
tariff  of  specific  duties;  of  protecting,  if 
we  can,  our  domestic  industry  and  the 
manufactures  of  the  country;  in  the 
work  of  preventing,  if  we  can,  the  over 
whelming  flood  of  foreign  importations. 
Suppose  that  to  be  part  of  the, future :  that 
would  be  exactly  the  "suitable  time," 
if  necessary,  for  two  Senators  from  New 
Mexico  to  make  their  appearance  here ! 

But,  again,  we  hear  another  halcyon, 
soothing  tone,  which  quiets  none  of  my 
alarms,  assuages  none  of  my  apprehen 
sions,  commends  me  to  my  nightly  rest 
with  no  more  resignation.  And  that  is, 
the  plea  that  we  may  trust  the  popular 
branch  of  the  legislature,  we  may  look 
to  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  the 
Northern  and  Middle  States  and  even 
the  sound  men  of  the  South,  and  trust 
them  to  take  care  that  States  be  not  ad 
mitted  sooner  than  they  should  be,  or 
for  party  purposes.  I  am  compelled, 
by  experience,  to  distrust  all  such  reli 
ances.  If  we  cannot  rely  on  ourselves, 
when  we  have  the  clear  constitutional 
authority  competent  to  carry  us  through, 
and  the  motives  intensely  powerful,  I 
beg  to  know  how  we  can  rely  on  others. 
Have  we  more  reliance  on  the  patriot 
ism,  the  firmness,  of  others,  than  on 
our  own? 

Besides,  experience  shows  us  that 
things  of  this  sort  may  be  sprung  upon 
Congress  arid  the  people.  It  was  so  in 
the  case  of  Texas.  It  was  so  in  the 
Twenty-eighth  Congress.  The  mem 
bers  of  that  Congress  were  not  chosen 
to  decide  the  question  of  annexation  or 
no  annexation.  They  came  in  on  other 
grounds,  political  and  party,  and  were 
supported  for  reasons  not  connected 
with  that  question.  What  then?  The 
administration  sprung  upon  them  the 
question  of  annexation.  It  obtained 
a  snap  judgment  upon  it,  and  carried 


the  measure  of  annexation.  That  is  in 
dubitable,  as  I  could  show  by  many  in 
stances,  of  which  I  shall  state  only  one. 

Four  gentlemen  from  the  State  of  Con 
necticut  were  elected  before  the  ques 
tion  arose,  belonging  to  the  dominant 
party.  They  had  not  been  here  long 
before  they  were  committed  to  annexa 
tion  ;  and  when  it  was  known  in  Con 
necticut  that  annexation  was  in  contem 
plation,  remonstrances,  private,  public, 
and  legislative,  were  uttered,  in  tones 
that  any  one  could  hear  who  could  hear 
thunder.  Did  they  move  them?  Not 
at  all.  Every  one  of  them  voted  for  an 
nexation!  The  election  came  on,  and 
they  were  turned  out,  to  a  man.  But 
what  did  those  care  who  had  had  the 
benefit  of  their  votes?  Such  agencies, 
if  it  be  not  more  proper  to  call  them 
such  instrumentalities,  retain  respect  no 
longer  than  they  continue  to  be  useful. 

Sir,  we  take  New  Mexico  and  Cali 
fornia;  who  is  weak  enough  to  suppose 
that  there  is  an  end?  Don't  we  hear  it 
avowed  every  day,  that  it  would  be 
proper  also  to  take  Sonora,  Tamaulipas, 
and  other  provinces  of  Northern  Mex 
ico?  Who  thinks  that  the  hunger  for 
dominion  will  stop  here  of  itself?  It  is 
said,  to  be  sure,  that  our  present  acqui 
sitions  will  prove  so  lean  and  unsatis 
factory,  that  we  shall  seek  no  further. 
In  my  judgment,  we  may  as  well  say  of 
a  rapacious  animal,  that,  if  he  has  made 
one  unproductive  hunt,  he  will  not  try 
for  a  better  foray. 

But  further.  There  are  some  things 
one  can  argue  against  with  temper,  and 
submit  to,  if  overruled,  without  morti 
fication.  There  are  other  things  that 
seem  to  affect  one's  consciousness  of 
being  a  sensible  man,  and  to  imply  a 
disposition  to  impose  upon  his  common 
sense.  And  of  this  class  of  topics,  or 
pretences,  I  have  never  heard  of  any 
thing,  and  I  cannot  conceive  of  any 
thing,  more  ridiculous  in  itself,  more 
absurd,  and  more  affrontive  to  all  sober 
judgment,  than  the  cry  that  we  are  get 
ting  indemnity  by  the  acquisition  of 
New  Mexico  and  California.  1  hold 
they  are  not  worth  a  dollar;  and  we 
pay  for  them  vast  sums  of  money !  We 


OBJECTS   OF   THE   MEXICAN  WAR. 


565 


have  expended,  as  everybody  knows, 
large  treasures  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
war ;  and  now  what  is  to  constitute  this 
indemnity?  What  do  gentlemen  mean 
by  it  ?  Let  us  see  a  little  how  this 
stands.  We  get  a  country;  we  get,  in 
the  first  instance,  a  cession,  or  an  ac 
knowledgment  of  boundary,  (I  care  not 
which  way  you  state  it,)  of  the  coun 
try  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio 
Grande.  What  this  country  is  appears 
from  a  publication  made  by  a  gentle 
man  in  the  other  house.1  He  speaks  of 
the  country  in  the  following  manner :  — 

"  The  country  from  the  Nueces  to  the 
valley  of  the  Rio  Grande  is  poor,  sterile, 
sandy,  and  barren,  with  not  a  single  tree  of 
any  size  or  value  on  our  whole  route.  The 
only  tree  which  we  saw  was  the  musquit- 
tree,  and  very  few  of  these.  The  musquit 
is  a  small  tree,  resembling  an  old  and  de 
cayed  peach-tree.  The  whole  country  may 
be  truly  called  a  perfect  waste,  uninhabited 
and  uninhabitable.  There  is  not  a  drop  of 
running  water  between  the  two  rivers,  except 
in  the  two  small  streams  of  San  Salvador 
and  Santa  Gertrudis,  and  these  only  con 
tain  water  in  the  rainy  season.  Neither  of 
them  had  running  water  when  we  passed 
them.  The  chaparral  commences  within 
forty  or  fifty  miles  of  the  Rio  Grande. 
This  is  poor,  rocky,  and  sandy ;  covered 
with  prickly-pear,  thistles,  and  almost  every 
sticking  thing,  constituting  a  thick  and 
perfectly  impenetrable  undergrowth.  For 
any  useful  or  agricultural  purpose,  the 
country  is  not  worth  a  sous. 

"  So  far  as  we  were  able  to  form  any 
opinion  of  this  desert  upon  the  other  routes 
which  had  been  travelled,  its  character, 
everywhere  between  the  two  rivers,  is 
pretty  much  the  same.  We  learned  that 
the  route  pursued  by  General  Taylor,  south 
of  ours,  was  through  a  country  similar  to 
that  through  which  we  passed ;  as  also  was 
that  travelled  by  General  Wool  from  San 
Antonio  to  Presidio  on  the  Rio  Grande. 
From  what  we  both  saw  and  heard,  the 
whole  command  came  to  the  conclusion 
which  I  have  already  expressed,  that  it  was 
worth  nothing.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  say 
ing,  that  I  would  not  hazard  the  life  of  one 
valuable  and  useful  man  for  every  foot  of 
land  between  San  Patricio  and  the  valley  of 
the  Rio  Grande.  The  country  is  not  now, 
and  can  never  be,  of  the  slightest  value." 
1  Major  Gaines. 


Major  Gaines  has  been  there  lately. 
He  is  a  competent  observer.  He  is  con 
tradicted  by  nobody.  And  so  far  as 
that  country  is  concerned,  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  it  is  not  worth  a  dollar. 

Now  of  New  Mexico,  what  of  that? 
Forty-nine  fiftieths,  at  least,  of  the 
whole  of  New  Mexico,  are  a  barren 
waste,  a  desert  plain  of  mountain,  with 
no  wood,  no  timber.  Little  fagots  for 
lighting  a  fire  are  carried  thirty  or  forty 
miles  on  mules.  There  is  no  fall  of 
rain  there,  as  in  temperate  climates.  It 
is  Asiatic  in  scenery  altogether:  enor 
mously  high  mountains,  running  up 
some  of  them  ten  thousand  feet,  with 
narrow  valleys  at  their  bases,  through 
which  streams  sometimes  trickle  along. 
A  strip,  a  garter,  winds  along,  through 
which  runs  the  Rio  Grande,  from  far 
away  up  in  the  Rocky  Mountains  to 
latitude  33°,  a  distance  of  three  or 
four  hundred  miles.  There  these  sixty 
thousand  persons  reside.  In  the  moun 
tains  on  the  right  and  left  are  streams 
which,  obeying  the  natural  tendency  as 
tributaries,  should  flow  into  the  Rio 
Grande,  and  which,  in  certain  seasons, 
when  rains  are  abundant,  do,  some  of 
them,  actually  reach  the  Rio  Grande; 
while  the  greater  part  always,  and  all 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  never 
reach  an  outlet  to  the  sea,  but  are  ab 
sorbed  in  the  sands  and  desert  plains  of 
the  country.  There  is  no  cultivation 
there.  There  is  cultivation  where  there 
is  artificial  watering  or  irrigation,  and 
nowhere  else.  Men  can  live  only  in 
the  narrow  valley,  and  in  the  gorges  of 
the  mountains  which  rise  round  it,  and 
not  along  the  course  of  the  streams  which 
lose  themselves  in  the  sands. 

Now  there  is  no  public  domain  in 
New  Mexico,  not  a  foot  of  land,  to  the 
soil  of  which  we  shall  obtain  title.  Not 
an  acre  becomes  ours  when  the  country 
becomes  ours.  More  than  that,  the 
country  is  as  full  of  people,  such  as  they 
are,  as  it  is  likely  to  be.  There  is  not 
the  least  thing  in  it  to  invite  settlement 
from  the  fertile  valley  of  the  Mississippi. 
And  I  undertake  to  say,  there  would 
not  be  two  hundred  families  of  persons 
who  would  emigrate  from  the  United 


566 


OBJECTS   OF  THE   MEXICAN  WAR. 


States  to  New  Mexico,  for  agricultural 
purposes,  in  fifty  years.  They  could 
not  live  there.  Suppose  they  were  to 
cultivate  the  lands;  they  could  only 
make  them  productive  in  a  slight  degree 
by  irrigation  or  artificial  watering.  The 
people  there  produce  little,  and  live  on 
little.  That  is  not  the  characteristic,  I 
take  it,  of  the  people  of  the  Eastern  or 
of  the  Middle  States,  or  of  the  Valley  of 
the  Mississippi.  They  produce  a  good 
deal,  and  they  consume  a  good  deal. 

Again,  Sir,  New  Mexico  is  not  like 
Texas.  I  have  hoped,  and  I  still  hope, 
that  Texas  will  be  filled  up  from  among 
ourselves,  not  with  Spaniards,  not  with 
peons;  that  its  inhabitants  will  not  be 
Mexican  landlords,  with  troops  of  slaves, 
predial  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Rusk  here  rose,  and  said  that  he  dis 
liked  to  interrupt  the  Senator,  and  there 
fore  he  had  said  nothing  while  he  was  de 
scribing  the  country  between  the  Nueces 
and  the  Rio  Grande ;  but  he  wished  now  to 
say,  that,  when  that  country  comes  to  be 
known,  it  will  be  found  to  be  as  valuable 
as  any  part  of  Texas.  The  valley  of  the 
Rio  Grande  is  valuable  from  its  source  to 
its  mouth.  But  he  did  not  look  upon  that 
as  indemnity  ;  he  claimed  that  as  the  right  oi 
Texas.  So  far  as  the  Mexican  population 
is  concerned,  there  is  a  good  deal  of  it  in 
Texas ;  and  it  comprises  many  respectable 
persons,  wealthy,  intelligent,  and  distin 
guished.  A  good  many  are  now  moving  in 
from  New  Mexico,  and  settling  in  Texas. 

I  take  what  I  say  from  Major  Gaines. 
But  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  any  part  of 
New  Mexico  is  fit  for  the  foot  of  civil 
ized  man.  And  I  am  glad,  moreover, 
that  there  are  some  persons  in  New 
Mexico  who  are  not  so  blindly  attached 
to  their  miserable  condition  as  not  to 
make  an  effort  to  come  out  of  their 
country,  and  get  into  a  better. 

Sir,  I  would,  if  I  had  time,  call  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  to  an  instructive 
speech  made  in  the  other  house  by  Mr. 
Smith  of  Connecticut.  He  seems  to 
have  examined  all  the  authorities,  to 
have  conversed  with  all  the  travellers, 
to  have  corresponded  with  all  our  agents. 
His  speech  contains  communications 
from  all  of  them;  and  I  commend  it  to 


every  man  in  the  United  States  who 
wishes  to  know  what  we  are  about  to  ac 
quire  by  the  annexation  of  New  Mexico. 

New  Mexico  is  secluded,  isolated,  a 
place  by  itself,  in  the  midst  and  at  the 
foot  of  vast  mountains,  five  hundred 
miles  from  the  settled  part  of  Texas, 
and  as  far  from  anywhere  else!  It  does 
not  belong  anywhere !  It  has  no  belong 
ings  about  it!  At  this  moment  it  is 
absolutely  more  retired  and  shut  out 
from  communication  with  the  civilized 
world  than  Hawaii  or  any  of  the  other 
islands  of  the  Pacific  sea.  In  seclusion 
and  remoteness,  New  Mexico  may  press 
hard  on  the  character  and  condition  of 
Typee.  And  its  people  are  infinitely 
less  elevated,  in  morals  and  condition, 
than  the  people  of  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
We  had  much  better  have  Senators 
from  Oahu.  They  are  far  less  intelli 
gent  than  the  better  class  of  our  Indian 
neighbors.  Commend  me  to  the  Chero- 
kees,  to  the  Choctaws;  if  you  please, 
speak  of  the  Pawnees,  of  the  Snakes, 
the  Flatfeet,  of  any  thing  but  the  Dig 
ging  Indians,  and  I  will  be  satisfied 
not  to  take  the  people  of  New  Mexico. 
Have  they  any  notion  of  our  institu 
tions,  or  of  any  free  institutions?  Have 
they  any  notion  of  popular  government? 
Not  the  slightest!  Not  the  slightest  on 
earth !  When  the  question  is  asked, 
What  will  be  their  constitution?  it  is 
farcical  to  talk  of  such  people  making 
a  constitution  for  themselves.  They  do 
not  know  the  meaning  of  the  term,  they 
do  not  know  its  import.  They  know 
nothing  at  all  about  it ;  and  I  can  tell 
you,  Sir,  that  when  they  are  made  a 
Territory,  and  are  to  be  made  a  State, 
such  a  constitution  as  the  executive 
power  of  this  government  may  think  fit 
to  send  them  will  be  sent,  and  will  be 
adopted.  The  constitution  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  of  New  Mexico  will  be  framed 
in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Now  what  says  in  regard  to  all  Mexico 
Colonel  Ilardin,  that  most  lamented  and 
distinguished  officer,  honorably  known 
as  a  member  of  the  other  house,  and 
who  has  fallen  gallantly  fighting  in  the 
service  of  his  country?  Here  is  his 
description :  — 


OBJECTS   OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 


567 


"  The  whole  country  is  miserably  wa 
tered.  Large  districts  have  no  water  at  all. 
The  streams  are  small,  and  at  great  dis 
tances  apart.  One  day  we  marched  on  the 
road  from  Monclova  to  Parras  thirty-five 
miles  without  water,  a  pretty  severe  day's 
marching  for  infantry. 

"  Grass  is  very  scarce,  and  indeed  there 
is  none  at  all  in  many  regions  for  miles 
square.  Its  place  is  supplied  with  prickly- 
pear  and  thorny  bushes.  There  is  not  one 
acre  in  two  hundred,  more  probably  not 
one  in  five  hundred,  of  all  the  land  we  have 
seen  in  Mexico,  which  can  ever  be  culti 
vated  ;  the  greater  portion  of  it  is  the  most 
desolate  region  I  could  ever  have  imagined. 
The  pure  granite  hills  of  New  England  are 
a  paradise  to  it,  for  they  are  without  the 
thorny  briers  and  venomous  reptiles  which 
infest  the  barbed  barrenness  of  Mexico. 
The  good  land  and  cultivated  spots  in 
Mexico  are  but  dots  on  the  map.  Were  it 
not  that  it  takes  so  very  little  to  support  a 
Mexican,  and  that  the  land  which  is  culti 
vated  yields  its  produce  with  little  labor,  it 
would  be  surprising  how  its  sparse  popula 
tion  is  sustained.  All  the  towns  we  have 
visited,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of  Par 
ras,  are  depopulating,  as  is  also  the  whole 
country. 

"  The  people  are  on  a  par  with  their 
land.  One  in  two  hundred  or  five  hundred 
is  rich,  and  lives  like  a  nabob  ;  the  rest  are 
peons,  or  servants  sold  for  debt,  who  work 
for  their  masters,  and  are  as  subservient  as 
the  slaves  of  the  South,  and  look  like  In 
dians,  and,  indeed,  are  not  more  capable  of 
self-government.  One  man,  Jacobus  San 
chez,  owns  three  fourths  of  all  the  land  our 
column  has  passed  over  in  Mexico.  We 
are  told  we  have  seen  the  best  part  of 
Northern  Mexico ;  if  so,  the  whole  of  it  is 
not  worth  much. 

"  I  came  to  Mexico  in  favor  of  getting 
or  taking  enough  of  it  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  the  war.  I  now  doubt  whether  all 
Northern  Mexico  is  worth  the  expenses  of 
our  column  of  three  thousand  men.  The 
expenses  of  the  war  must  be  enormous ;  we 
have  paid  enormous  prices  for  every  thing, 
much  beyond  the  usual  prices  of  the  coun 
try." 

There  it  is.  That's  all  North  Mexico ; 
and  New  Mexico  is  not  the  better  part 
of  it. 

Sir,  there  is  a  recent  traveller,  not 
unfriendly  to  the  United  States,  if  we 
may  judge  from  his  work,  for  he  speaks 


well  of  us  every  where ;  an  Englishman, 
named  Ruxton.  He  gives  an  account 
of  the  morals  and  the  manners  of  the 
population  of  New  Mexico.  And,  Mr. 
President  and  Senators,  I  shall  take 
leave  to  introduce  you  to  these  soon  to 
be  your  respected  fellow-citizens  of  New 
Mexico:  — 

"  It  is  remarkable  that,  although  existing 
from  the  earliest  times  of  the  colonization 
of  New  Mexico,  a  period  of  two  centuries, 
in  a  state  of  continual  hostility  with  the 
numerous  savage  tribes  of  Indians  who 
surround  their  territory,  and  in  constant 
insecurity  of  life  and  property  from  their 
attacks,  being  also  far  removed  from  the 
enervating  influences  of  large  cities,  and, 
in  their  isolated  situation,  entirely  depend 
ent  upon  their  own  resources,  the  inhabi 
tants  are  totally  destitute  of  those  qualities 
which,  for  the  above  reasons,  we  might 
naturally  have  expected  to  distinguish 
them,  and  are  as  deficient  in  energy  of 
character  and  physical  courage  as  they  are 
in  all  the  moral  and  intellectual  qualities. 
In  their  social  state  but  one  degree  removed 
from  the  veriest  savages,  they  might  take  a 
lesson  even  from  these  in  morality  and  the 
conventional  decencies  of  life.  Imposing 
no  restraint  on  their  passions,  a  shameless 
and  universal  concubinage  exists,  and  a 
total  disregard  of  morality,  to  which  it 
would  be  impossible  to  find  a  parallel  in 
any  country  calling  itself  civilized.  A  want 
of  honorable  principle,  and  consummate 
duplicity  and  treachery,  characterize  all 
their  dealings.  Liars  by  nature,  they  are 
treacherous  and  faithless  to  their  friends, 
cowardly  and  cringing  to  their  enemies ; 
cruel,  as  all  cowards  are,  they  unite  savage 
ferocity  with  their  want  of  animal  courage  ; 
as  an  example  of  which,  their  recent  mas 
sacre  of  Governor  Bent,  and  other  Ameri 
cans,  may  be  given,  one  of  a  hundred 
instances." 

These,  Sir,  are  soon  to  be  our  beloved 
countrymen ! 

Mr.  President,  for  a  good  many  years 
I  have  struggled  in  opposition  to  every 
thing  which  I  thought  tended  to  strength 
en  the  arm  of  executive  power.  I  think 
it  is  growing  more  and  more  formidable 
every  day.  And  I  think  that  by  yielding 
to  it  in  this,  as  in  other  instances,  we 
give  it  a  strength  which  it  will  be  diffi 
cult  hereafter  to  resist.  I  think  that  it 


568 


OBJECTS   OF   THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 


is  nothing  less  than  the  fear  of  executive 
power  which  induces  us  to  acquiesce  in 
the  acquisition  of  territory;  fear,  fear, 
and  nothing  else. 

In  the  little  part  which  I  have  acted 
in  public  life,  it  has  been  my  purpose  to 
maintain  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
what  the  Constitution  designed  to  make 
them,  one  people,  one  in  interest,  one  in 
character,  and  one  in  political  feeling. 
If  we  depart  from  that,  we  break  it  all 
up.  What  sympathy  can  there  be  be 
tween  the  people  of  Mexico  and  Califor 
nia  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  Valley  of 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Eastern  States 
in  the  choice  of  a  President?  Do  they 
know  the  same  man  ?  Do  they  concur 
in  any  general  constitutional  principles? 
Not  at  all. 

Arbitrary  governments  may  have  ter 
ritories  and  distant  possessions,  because 
arbitrary  governments  may  rule  them 
by  different  laws  and  different  systems. 
Russia  may  rule  in  the  Ukraine  and  the 
provinces  of  the  Caucasus  and  Kamt- 
schatka  by  different  codes,  ordinances, 
or  ukases.  We  can  do  no  such  thing. 
They  must  be  of  us,  part  of  us,  or  else 
strangers. 

I  think  I  see  that  in  progress  which 
will  disfigure  and  deform  the  Constitu 
tion.  While  these  territories  remain 
territories,  they  will  be  a  trouble  and  an 
annoyance;  they  will  draw  after  them 
vast  expenses;  they  will  probably  re 
quire  as  many  troops  as  we  have  main 
tained  during  the  last  twenty  years  to 
**•  "end  them  against  the  Indian  tribes. 


We  must  maintain  an  army  at  that  im 
mense  distance.  When  they  shall  be 
come  States,  they  will  be  still  more 
likely  to  give  us  trouble. 

I  think  I  see  a  course  adopted  which 
is  likely  to  turn  the  Constitution  of  the 
land  into  a  deformed  monster,  into  a 
curse  rather  than  a  blessing;  in  fact, 
a  frame  of  an  unequal  government,  not 
founded  on  popular  representation,  not 
founded  on  equality,  but  on  the  grossest 
inequality;  and  I  think  that  this  process 
will  go  on,  or  that  there  is  danger  that 
it  will  go  on,  until  this  Union  shall  fall 
to  pieces.  I  resist  it,  to-day  and  always ! 
Whoever  falters  or  whoever  flies,  I  con 
tinue  the  contest! 

I  know,  Sir,  that  all  the  portents  are 
discouraging.  Would  to  God  I  could 
auspicate  good  influences!  W^ould  to 
God  that  those  who  think  with  me,  and 
myself,  could  hope  for  stronger  support! 
Would  that  we  could  stand  where  we 
desire  to  stand!  I  see  the  signs  are 
sinister.  But  with  few,  or  alone,  my 
position  is  fixed.  If  there  were  time, 
I  would  gladly  awaken  the  country.  I 
believe  the  country  might  be  a\vakened, 
although  it  may  be  too  late — /  For  my 
self,  supported  or  unsupported,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  I  shall  do  my  duty.  I 
see  well  enough  all  the  adverse  indica 
tions.  But  I  am  sustained  by  a  deep 
and  a  conscientious  sense  of  duty;  and 
while  supported  by  that  feeling,  and 
while  such  great  interests  are  at  stake, 
I  defy  auguries,  and  ask  no  omen  but 
my  country's  cause! 


EXCLUSION     OF     SLAVERY    FROM     THE 
TERRITORIES. 

REMAKKS  MADE  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  12ra  OF 

AUGUST,   1848. 


[!N  the  course  of  the  first  session  of  the 
Thirtieth  Congress,  a  bill  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  organize  a  govern 
ment  for  the  Territory  of  Oregon.  This 
bill  received  several  amendments  on  its 
passage  t  through  the  Senate,  and  among 
them  one  moved  by  Mr.  Douglass  of  Illi 
nois,  on  the  10th  of  August,  by  which  the 
eighth  section  of  the  law  of  the  6th  of 
March,  1820,  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
was  revived  and  adopted,  as  a  part  of  the 
bill,  and  declared  to  be  "  in  full  force,  and 
binding,  for  the  future  organization  of  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same 
sense  and  with  the  same  understanding  with 
which  it  was  originally  adopted." 

This,  with  some  of  the  other  amend 
ments  of  the  Senate,  was  disagreed  to  by 
the  House.  On  the  return  of  the  bill  to  the 
Senate,  a  discussion  arose,  and  continued 
for  several  days,  on  the  question  of  agree 
ment  or  disagreement  with  the  amendments 
of  the  House  to  the  Senate's  amendments. 

The  principal  subject  of  this  discussion 
was  whether  the  Senate  would  recede  from 
the  above-mentioned  amendment  moved  by 
Mr.  Douglass,  which  was  finally  decided  in 
the  affirmative.  In  these  discussions,  a  con 
siderable  portion  of  which  was  of  a  conver 
sational  character,  Mr.  Webster  took  a 
leading  part ;  but  of  most  of  what  was  said 
by  him,  as  by  other  Senators,  no  report  has 
been  preserved.  The  session  of  the  Senate 
at  which  the  last  and  most  animated  dis 
cussion  of  this  subject  took  place,  nomi 
nally  on  Saturday  of  the  12th  of  August,  was 
prolonged  till  ten  o'clock,  A.  M.,  of  Sunday, 
the  13th.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  on 
this  day  Mr.  Webster  spoke  as  follows.] 

I  AM  very  little  inclined  to  prolong 
this  debate,  and  I  hope  I  am  utterly  dis 
inclined  to  bring  into  it  any  new  warmth 
or  excitement.  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words, 


however,  first,  upon  the  question  as  it  is 
presented  to  us,  as  a  parliamentary  ques 
tion;  and  secondly,  upon  the  general 
political  questions  involved  in  the  de 
bate. 

As  a  question  of  parliamentary  pro 
ceeding,  I  understand  the  case  to  be  this. 
The  House  of  Representatives  sent  us  a 
bill  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial 
government  in  Oregon;  and  no  motion 
has  been  made  in  the  Senate  to  strike 
out  any  part  of  that  bill.  The  bill  pur 
porting  to  respect  Oregon,  simply  and 
alone,  has  not  been  the  subject  of  any 
objection  in  this  branch  of  the  legisla 
ture.  The  Senate  has  proposed  no  im 
portant  amendment  to  this  bill,  affect 
ing  Oregon  itself;  and  the  honorable 
member  from  Missouri l  was  right,  en 
tirely  right,  when  he  said  that  the 
amendment  now  under  consideration 
had  no  relation  to  Oregon.  That  is  per 
fectly  true;  and  therefore  the  amend 
ment  which  the  Senate  has  adopted, 
and  the  House  has  disagreed  to,  has  no 
connection  with  the  immediate  subject 
before  it.  The  truth  is,  that  it  is  an 
amendment  by  which  the  Senate  wishes 
to  have  now  a  public,  legal  declaration, 
not  respecting  Oregon,  but  respecting 
the  newly  acquired  territories  of  Cali 
fornia  and  New  Mexico.  It  wishes 
now  to  make  a  line  of  slavery,  which 
shall  include  those  new  territories. 

i  Mr.  Benton. 


570 


EXCLUSION  OF   SLAVERY  FROM  THE  TERRITORIES. 


The  amendment  says  that  the  line  of 
the  "Missouri  Compromise"  shall  be 
the  line  to  the  Pacific,  and  then  goes 
on  to  say,  in  the  language  of  the  bill  as 
it  now  stands,  that  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  shall  be  applicable  to  Oregon ;  and 
therefore  I  say  that  the  amendment 
proposed  is  foreign  to  the  immediate 
object  of  the  bill.  It  does  nothing  to 
modify,  restrain,  or  affect,  in  any  way, 
the  government  which  we  propose  to 
establish  over  Oregon,  or  the  condition 
or  character  of  that  government,  or  of 
the  people  under  it.  In  a  parliamen 
tary  view,  this  is  the  state  of  the  case. 

Now,  Sir,  this  amendment  has  been 
attached  to  this  bill  by  a  strong  major 
ity  of  the  Senate.  That  majority  had 
the  right,  as  it  had  the  power,  to  pass 
it.  The  House  disagreed  to  that  amend 
ment.  If  the  majority  of  the  Senate, 
who  attached  it  to  the  bill,  are  of  opin 
ion  that  a  conference  with  the  House 
will  lead  to  some  adjustment  of  the 
question,  by  which  this  amendment, 
or  something  equivalent  to  it,  may  be 
adopted  by  the  House,  it  is  very  proper 
for  them  to  urge  a  conference.  It  is 
very  fair,  quite  parliamentary,  and 
there  is  not  a  word  to  be  said  against 
it.  But  my  position  is  that  of  one 
who  voted  against  the  amendment,  who 
thinks  that  it  ought  not  to  be  attached 
to  this  bill;  and  therefore  I  naturally 
vote  for  the  motion  to  get  rid  of  it,  that 
is,  "to  recede." 

So  much  for  the  parliamentary  ques 
tion.  Now  there  are  two  or  three  polit 
ical  questions  arising  in  this  case,  which 
I  wish  to  state  dispassionately;  not  to 
argue,  but  to  state.  The  honorable 
member  from  Georgia,1  for  whom  I 
have  great  respect,  and  with  whom  it 
is  my  delight  to  cultivate  personal 
friendship,  has  stated,  with  great  pro 
priety,  the  importance  of  this  question. 
He  has  said,  that  it  is  a  question  in 
teresting  to  the  South  and  to  the  North, 
and  one  which  may  very  well  also  attract 
the  attention  of  mankind.  lie  has  not 
stated  any  part  of  this  too  strongly.  It 
is  such  a  question.  Without  doubt,  it 
is  a  question  which  may  well  attract  the 
1  Mr.  Berrien. 


attention  of  mankind.  On  the  subjects 
involved  in  this  debate,  the  whole  world 
is  not  now  asleep.  It  is  wide  awake; 
and  I  agree  wTith  the  honorable  mem 
ber,  that,  if  what  is  now  proposed  to  be 
done  by  us  who  resist  this  amendment 
is,  as  he  supposes,  unjust  and  injurious 
to  any  portion  of  this  community,  or 
against  its  constitutional  rights,  that 
injustice  should  be  presented  to  the 
civilized  world,  and  we,  who  concur  in 
the  proceeding,  ought  to  submit  our 
selves  to  its  rebuke.  I  am  glad  that  the 
honorable  gentleman  proposes  to  refer 
this  question  to  the  great  tribunal  of 
Modern  Civilization,  as  well  as  the 
great  tribunal  of  the  American  People. 
It  is  proper.  It  is  a  question  of  magni 
tude  enough,  of  interest  enough,  to  all 
the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  to 
call  from  those  who  support  the  one 
side  or  the  other  a  statement  of  the 
grounds  upon  which  they  act. 

Now  I  propose  to  state  as  briefly  as 
I  can  the  grounds  upon  which  I  pro 
ceed,  historical  and  constitutional;  and 
will  endeavor  to  use  as  few  words  as 
possible,  so  that  I  may  relieve  the  Sen 
ate  from  heaving  me  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  In  the  first  place, 
to  view  the  matter  historically.  This 
Constitution,  founded  in  1787,  and  the 
government  under  it,  organized  in  1789, 
do  recognize  the  existence  of  slavery  in 
certain  States  then  belonging  to  the 
Union,  and  a  particular  description  of 
slavery.  I  hope  that  what  I  am  about  to 
say  may  be  received  without  any  sup 
position  that  I  intend  the  slightest  dis 
respect.  But  this  particular  description 
of  slavery  does  not,  I  believe,  now  exist 
in  Europe,  nor  in  any  other  civilized 
portion  of  the  habitable  globe.  It  is 
not  a  predial  slavery.  It  is  not  analo 
gous  to  the  case  of  the  predial  slaves, 
or  slaves  glebce  adscripti  of  Russia,  or 
Hungary,  or  other  states.  It  is  a  pecu 
liar  system  of  personal  slavery,  by  which 
the  person  who  is  called  a  slave  is  trans 
ferable  as  a  chattel,  from  hand  to  hand. 
I  speak  of  this  as  a  fact;  and  that  is  the 
fact.  And  I  will  say  further,  perhaps 
other  gentlemen  may  remember  the  in 
stances,  that  although  slavery,  as  a  sys- 


EXCLUSION  OF  SLAVERY  FROM  THE  TERRITORIES. 


571 


tern  of  servitude  attached  to  the  earth, 
exists  in  various  countries  of  Europe, 
I  am  not  at  the  present  moment  aware 
of  any  place  on  the  globe  in  which  this 
property  of  man  in  a  human  being  as  a 
slave,  transferable  as  a  chattel,  exists, 
except  America.  Now,  that  it  existed, 
in  the  form  in  which  it  still  exists,  in 
certain  States,  at  the  formation  of  this 
Constitution,  and  that  the  framers  of 
that  instrument,  and  those  who  adopted 
it,  agreed  that,  as  far  as  it  existed,  it 
should  not  be  disturbed  or  interfered 
with  by  the  new  general  government, 
there  is  no  doubt. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
recognizes  it  as  an  existing  fact,  an  ex 
isting  relation  between  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Southern  States.  I  do  not  call 
it  an  "institution,"  because  that  term 
is  not  applicable  to  it;  for  that  seems 
to  imply  a  voluntary  establishment. 
When  I  first  came  here,  it  was  a  matter 
of  frequent  reproach  to  England,  the 
mother  country,  that  slavery  had  been 
entailed  upon  the  colonies  by  her, 
against  their  consent,  and  that  which 
is  now  considered  a  cherished  "  institu 
tion  "  was  then  regarded  as,  I  will  not 
say  an  evil,  but  an  entailment  on  the  Col 
onies  by  the  policy  of  the  mother  country 
against  their  wishes.  At  any  rate,  it 
stands  upon  the  Constitution.  The  Con 
stitution  was  adopted  in  1788,  and  went 
into  operation  in  1789.  When  it  was 
adopted,  the  state  of  the  country  was 
this:  slavery  existed  in  the  Southern 
States;  there  was  a  very  large  extent 
of  unoccupied  territory,  the  whole 
Northwestern  Territory,  which,  it  was 
understood,  was  destined  to  be  formed 
into  States ;  and  it  was  then  determined 
that  no  slavery  should  exist  in  this  terri 
tory.  I  gather  now,  as  a  matter  of  in 
ference  from  the  history  of  the  time 
and  the  history  of  the  debates,  that  the 
prevailing  motives  with  the  North  for 
agreeing  to  this  recognition  of  the  ex 
istence  of  slavery  in  the  Southern 
States,  and  giving  a  representation  to 
those  States  founded  in  part  upon  their 
slaves,  rested  on  the  supposition  that 
no  acquisition  of  territory  would  be 
made  to  form  new  States  on  the  south 


ern  frontier  of  this  country,  either  by 
cession  or  conquest.  No  one  looked  to 
any  acquisition  of  new  territory  on  the 
southern  or  southwestern  frontier.  The 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  North 
western  Territory  and  the  prospective 
abolition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade 
were  generally,  the  former  unani 
mously,  agreed  to;  and  on  the  basis  of 
these  considerations,  the  South  insisted 
that  where  slavery  existed  it  should  not 
be  interfered  with,  and  that  it  should 
have  a  certain  ratio  of  representation 
in  Congress.  And  now,  Sir,  I  am  one, 
who,  believing  such  to  be  the  under 
standing  on  which  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  mean  to  abide  by  it. 

There  is  another  principle,  equally 
clear,  by  which  I  mean  to  abide ;  and 
that  is,  that  in  the  Convention,  and  in 
the  first  Congress,  when  appealed  to  on 
the  subject  by  petitions,  and  all  along 
in  the  history  of  this  government,  it 
was  and  has  been  a  conceded  point,  that 
slavery  in  the  States  in  which  it  exists 
is  a  matter  of  jState  regulation  exclu 
sively,  and  that  Congress  has  not  the 
least  power  over  it,  or  right  to  interfere 
with  it.  Therefore  I  say,  that  all  agita 
tions  and  attempts  to  disturb  the  rela 
tions  between  master  and  slave,  by  per 
sons  not  living  in  the  slave  States,  are 
unconstitutional  in  their  spirit,  and  are, 
in  my  opinion,  productive  of  nothing 
but  evil  and  mischief.  I  countenance 
none  of  them.  The  manner  in  which 
the  governments  of  those  States  where 
slavery  exists  are  to  regulate  it,  is  for 
their  own  consideration,  under  their  re 
sponsibility  to  their  constituents,  to  the 
general  laws  of  propriety,  humanity, 
and  justice,  and  to  God.  Associations 
formed  elsewhere,  springing  from  a  feel 
ing  of  humanity,  or  any  other  cause, 
have  nothing  wrhatever  to  do  with  it, 
nor  right  to  interfere  with  it.  They 
have  never  received  any  encouragement 
from  me,  and  they  never  will.  In  my 
opinion,  they  have  done  nothing  but 
delay  and  defeat  their  own  professed 
objects. 

I  have  now  stated,  as  I  understand  it, 
the  condition  of  things  upon  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


572 


EXCLUSION  OF  SLAVERY  FROM  THE   TERRITORIES. 


States.  What  has  happened  since? 
Sir,  it  has  happened  that,  above  and  be 
yond  all  contemplation  or  expectation 
of  the  original  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  or  the  people  who  adopted  it,  for 
eign  territory  has  been  acquired  by 
cession,  first  from  France,  and  then 
from  Spain,  on  our  southern  frontier. 
And  what  has  been  the  result?  Five 
slave-holding  States  have  been  created 
and  added  to  the  Union,  bringing  ten 
Senators  into  this  body,  (I  include 
Texas,  which  I  consider  in  the  light  of 
a  foreign  acquisition  also,)  and  up  to 
this  hour  in  which  I  address  you,  not 
one  free  State  has  been  admitted  to  the 
Union  from  all  this  acquired  territory! 

MR.  BERRIEN  (in  his  seat).     Yes,  Iowa. 

Iowa  is  not  yet  in  the  Union.  Her 
Senators  are  not  here.  When  she  comes 
in,  there  will  be  one  to  five,  one  free 
State  to  five  slave  States,  formed  out  of 
new  territories.  Now,  it  seems  strange 
to  me  that  there  should  be  any  com 
plaint  of  injustice  exercised  by  the  North 
toward  the  South.  Northern  votes  have 
been  necessary,  they  have  been  ready, 
and  they  have  been  given,  to  aid  in  the 
admission  of  these  five  new  slave-holding 
States.  These  are  facts ;  and  as  the  gen 
tleman  from  Georgia  has  very  properly 
put  it  as  a  case  in  which  we  are  to  pre 
sent  ourselves  before  the  world  for  its 
judgment,  let  us  now  see  how  we  stand. 
I  do  not  represent  the  North.  I  state 
my  own  case;  and  I  present  the  matter 
in  that  light  in  which  I  am  willing,  as 
an  individual  member  of  Congress,  to  be 
judged  by  civilized  humanity.  I  say 
then,  that,  according  to  true  history,  the 
slave-holding  interest  in  this  country 
has  not  been  a  disfavored  interest;  it 
h,as  not  been  disfavored  by  the  North. 
The  North  has  concurred  to  bring  in 
these  five  slave-holding  States  out  of 
newly  acquired  territory,  which  acquisi 
tions  were  not  at  all  in  the  contempla 
tion  of  the  Convention  which  formed  the 
Constitution,  or  of  the  people  when  they 
agreed  that  there  should  be  a  represen 
tation  of  three  fifths  of  the  slaves  in  the 
then  existing  States. 

Mr.  President,  what  is  the  result  of 


this  ?  We  stand  here  now,  at  least  I  do, 
for  one,  t^  say,  that,  considering  there 
have  been  already  five  new  slave-holding 
States  formed  out  of  newly  acquired  ter 
ritory,  and  only  one  non-slave-holding 
State,  at  most,  I  do  not  feel  that  I  am 
called  on  to  go  further;  I  do  not  feel  the 
obligation  to  yield  more.  But  our  friends 
of  the  South  say,  You  deprive  us  of 
all  our  rights.'  We  have  fought  for  this 
territory,  and  you  deny  us  participation 
in  it.  Let  us  consider  this  question  as 
it  really  is;  and  since  the  honorable  gen 
tleman  from  Georgia  proposes  to  leave 
the  case  to  the  enlightened  and  impartial 
judgment  of  mankind,  and  as  I  agree 
with  him  that  it  is  a  case  proper  to  be 
considered  by  the  enlightened  part  of 
mankind,  let  us  see  how  the  matter  in 
truth  stands.  Gentlemen  who  advocate 
the  case  which  my  honorable  friend  from 
Georgia,  with  so  much  ability,  sustains, 
declare  that  we  invade  their  rights,  that 
we  deprive  them  of  a  participation  in  the 
enjoyment  of  territories  acquired  by  the 
common  services  and  common  exertions 
of  all.  Is  this  true?  How  deprive?  Of 
what  do  we  deprive  them  ?  Why,  they 
say  that  we  deprive  them  of  the  privi 
lege  of  carrying  their  slaves,  as  slaves, 
into  the  new  territories.  Well,  Sir,  what 
is  the  amount  of  that?  They  say  that 
in  this  way  we  deprive  them  of  the 
opportunity  of  going  into  this  acquired 
territory  with  their  property.  Their 
"property"?  What  do  they  mean  by 
"  property  "  ?  We  certainly  do  not  de 
prive  them  of  the  privilege  of  going  into 
these  newly  acquired  territories  with  all 
that,  in  the  general  estimate  of  human 
society,  in  the  general,  and  common,  and 
universal  understanding  of  mankind,  is 
esteemed  property.  Not  at  all.  The 
truth  is  just  this.  They  have,  in  their 
own  States,  peculiar  laws,  which  create 
property  in  persons.  They  have  a  sys 
tem  of  local  legislation  on  which  slavery 
rests ;  while  everybody  agrees  that  it  is 
against  natural  law,  or  at  least  against 
the  common  understanding  which  pre 
vails  among  men  as  to  what  is  natural 
law. 

I  am  not  going  into  metaphysics,  for 
therein  I  should  encounter  the  honora- 


EXCLUSION  OF   SLAVERY  FROM  THE   TERRITORIES. 


573 


ble  member  from  South  Carolina,1  and 
\ve  should  find  "no  end,  in  wandering 
mazes  lost,"  until  after  the  time  for  the 
adjournment  of  Congress.  The  Southern 
States  have  peculiar  laws,  and  by  those 
laws  there  is  property  in  slaves.  This 
is  purely  local.  The  real  meaning,  then, 
of  Southern  gentlemen,  in  making  this 
complaint,  is,  that  they  cannot  go  into 
the  territories  of  the  United  States  car 
rying  with  them  their  own  peculiar  local 
law,  a  law  which  creates  property  in  per 
sons.  This,  according  to  their  own 
statement,  is  all  the  ground  of  complaint 
they  have.  Now  here,  I  think,  gentle 
men  are  unjust  towards  us.  How  un 
just  they  are,  others  will  judge;  genera 
tions  that  will  come  after  us  will  judge. 
It  will  not  be  contended  that  this  sort  of 
personal  slavery  exists  by  general  law. 
It  exists  only  by  local  law.  I  do  not 
mean  to  deny  the  validity  of  that  local 
law  where  it  is  established ;  but  I  say  it 
is,  after  all,  local  law.  It  is  nothing 
more.  And  wherever  that  local  law  does 
not  extend,  property  in  persons  does  not 
exist.  Well,  Sir,  what  is  now  the  de 
mand  on  the  part  of  our  Southern  friends? 
They  say,  "  We  will  carry  our  local 
laws  with  us  wherever  we  go.  We  in 
sist  that  Congress  does  us  injustice  un 
less  it  establishes  in  the  territory  in 
which  we  wish  to  go  our  own  local  law." 
This  demand  I  for  one  resist,  and  shall 
resist.  It  goes  upon  the  idea  that  there 
is  an  inequality,  unless  persons  under 
this  local  law,  and  holding  property  by 
authority  of  that  law,  can  go  into  new 
territory  and  there  establish  that  local 
law,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  general  law. 
Mr.  President,  it  was  a  maxim  of  the 
civil  law,  that,  between  slavery  and 
freedom,  freedom  should  always  be  pre 
sumed,  and  slavery  must  always  be 
proved.  If  any  question  arose  as  to  the 
status  of  an  individual  in  Rome,  he  was 
presumed  to  be  free  until  he  was  proved 
to  be  a  slave,  because  slavery  is  an  ex 
ception  to  the  general  rule.  Such,  I 
suppose,  is  the  general  law  of  mankind. 
An  individual  is  to  be  presumed  to  be 
free,  until  a  law  can  be  produced  which 
creates  ownership  in  his  person.  I  do 
i  Mr.  Calhoun. 


not  dispute  the  force  and  validity  of  the 
local  law,  as  I  have  already  said;  but  I 
say,  it  is  a  matter  to  be  proved;  and 
therefore,  if  individuals  go  into  any  part 
of  the  earth,  it  is  to  be  proved  that  they 
are  not  freemen,  or  else  the  presumption 
is  that  they  are. 

Now  our  friends  seem  to  think  that  an 
inequality  arises  from  restraining  them 
from  going  into  the  territories,  unless 
there  be  a  law  provided  which  shall  pro 
tect  their  ownership  in  persons.  The 
assertion  is,  that  we  create  an  inequality. 
Is  there  nothing  to  be  said  on  the  other 
side  in  relation  to  inequality?  Sir,  from 
the  date  of  this  Constitution,  and  in  the 
counsels  that  formed  and  established 
this  Constitution,  and  I  suppose  in  all 
men's  judgment  since,  it  is  received  as 
a  settled  truth,  that  slave  labor  and  free 
labor  do  not  exist  well  together.  I  have 
before  me  a  declaration  of  Mr.  Mason, 
in  the  Convention  that  formed  the  Con 
stitution,  to  that  effect.  Mr.  Mason,  as 
is  well  known,  was  a  distinguished  mem 
ber  from  Virginia.  He  says  that  the 
objection  to  slave  labor  is,  that  it  puts 
free  white  labor  in  disrepute;  that  it 
causes  labor  to  be  regarded  as  deroga 
tory  to  the  character  of  the  free  white 
man,  and  that  the  free  white  man  de 
spises  to  work,  to  use  his  expression, 
wher6  slaves  are  employed.  This  is  a 
matter  of  great  interest  to  the  free  States, 
if  it  be  true,  as  to  a  great  extent  it  cer 
tainly  is,  that  wherever  slave  labor  pre 
vails  free  white  labor  is  excluded  or  dis 
couraged.  I  agree  that  slave  labor  does 
not  necessarily  exclude  free  labor  totally. 
There  is  free  white  labor  in  Virginia, 
Tennessee,  and  other  States,  where  most 
of  the  labor  is  done  by  slaves.  But  it 
necessarily  loses  something  of  its  re 
spectability,  by  the  side  of,  and  when 
associated  with,  slave  labor.  Wherever 
labor  is  mainly  performed  by  slaves,  it 
is  regarded  as  degrading  to  freemen. 
The  freemen  of  the  North,  therefore, 
have  a  deep  interest  in  keeping  labor 
free,  exclusively  free,  in  the  new  terri 
tories. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  look  further  into  this 
alleged  inequality.  There  is  no  pre 
tence  that  Southern  people  may  not  go 


574 


EXCLUSION  OF  SLAVERY  FROM  THE  TERRITORIES. 


into  territory  which  shall  be  subject  to 
the  Ordinance  of  1787.  The  only  re 
straint  is,  that  they  shall  not  carry  slaves 
thither,  and  continue  that  relation. 
They  say  this  shuts  them  altogether  out. 
Why,  Sir,  there  can  be  nothing  more 
inaccurate  in  point  of  fact  than  this 
statement.  I  understand  that  one  half 
the  people  who  settled  Illinois  are  peo 
ple,  or  descendants  of  people,  who  came 
from  the  Southern  States.  And  I  sup 
pose  that  one  third  of  the  people  of  Ohio 
are  those,  or  descendants  of  those,  who 
emigrated  from  the  South ;  and  I  ven 
ture  to  say,  that,  in  respect  to  those  two 
States,  they  are  at  this  day  settled  by 
people  of  Southern  origin  in  as  great  a 
proportion  as  they  are  by  people  of 
Northern  origin,  according  to  the  gen 
eral  numbers  and  proportion  of  people, 
South  and  North.  There  are  as  many 
people  from  the  South,  in  proportion  to 
the  whole  people  of  the  South,  in  those 
States,  as  there  are  from  the  North,  in 
proportion  to  the  whole  people  of  the 
North.  There  is,  then,  no  exclusion  of 
Southern  people ;  there  is  only  the  ex 
clusion  of  a  peculiar  local  law.  Neither 
in  principle  nor  in  fact  is  there  any  in 
equality. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  it  is  not 
competent  to  Congress,  in  the  exercise 
of  a  fair  and  just  discretion,  considering 
that  there  have  been  five  slave-holding 
States  added  to  this  Union  out  of  foreign 
acquisitions,  and  as  yet  only  one  free 
State,  to  prevent  their  further  increase. 
That  is  the  question.  I  see  no  injustice 
iu  it.  As  to  the  power  of  Congress,  I 
have  nothing  to  add  to  what  I  said  the 
other  day.  Congress  has  full  power  over 
the  subject.  It  may  establish  any  such 
government,  and  any  such  laws,  in  the 
territories,  as  in  its  discretion  it  may  see 
fit.  It  is  subject,  of  course,  to  the  rules 
of  justice  and  propriety;  but  it  is  under 
no  constitutional  restraints. 

I  have  said  that  I  shall  consent  to  no 
extension  of  the  area  of  slavery  upon 
this  continent,  nor  to  any  increase  of 
slave  representation  in  the  other  house 
of  Congress.  I  have  now  stated  my  rea 
sons  for  my  conduct  and  my  vote.  We 


of  the  North  have  already  gone,  in  this 
respect,  fa%r  beyond  all  that  any  South 
ern  man  could  have  expected,  or  did  ex 
pect,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.  I  repeat  the  statement  of 
the  fact  of  the  creation  of  five  new  slave- 
holding  States  out  of  newly  acquired 
territory.  We  have  done  that  which,  if 
those  who  framed  the  Constitution  had 
foreseen,  they  never  would  have  agreed 
to  slave  representation.  We  have  yielded 
thus  far;  and  we  have  now  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  twenty  persons  vot 
ing  upon  this  very  question,  and  upon 
all  other  questions,  who  are  there  only 
in  virtue  of  the  representation  of  slaves. 
Let  me  conclude,  therefore,  by  re 
marking,  that,  while  I  am  willing  to 
present  this  as  showing  my  own  judg 
ment  and  position,  in  regard  to  this 
case,  and  I  beg  it  to  be  understood  that 
I  am  speaking  for  no  other  than  myself, 
and  while  I  am  willing  to  offer  it  to  the 
whole  world  as  my  own  justification,  I 
rest  on  these  propositions:  First,  That 
when  this  Constitution  was  adopted, 
nobody  looked  for  any  new  acquisition 
of  territory  to  be  formed  into  slave-hold 
ing  States.  Secondly,  That  the  princi 
ples  of  the  Constitution  prohibited,  and 
were  intended  to  prohibit,  and  should  be 
construed  to  prohibit,  all  interference  of 
the  general  government  with  slavery  as 
it  existed  and  as  it  still  exists  in  the 
States.  And  then,  looking  to  the  oper 
ation  of  these  new  acquisitions,  which 
have  in  this  great  degree  had  the  effect 
of  strengthening  that  interest  in  the 
South  by  the  addition  of  these  five 
States,  I  feel  that  there  is  nothing  un 
just,  nothing  of  which  any  honest  man 
can  complain,  if  he  is  intelligent,  and  I 
feel  that  there  is  nothing  with  which  the 
civilized  world,  if  they  take  notice  of  so 
humble  a  person  as  myself,  will  reproach 
me,  when  I  say,  as  I  said  the  other  day, 
that  I  have  made  up  my  mind,  for  one, 
that  under  no  circumstances  will  I  con 
sent  to  the  further  extension  of  the 
area  of  slavery  in  the  United  States, 
or  to  the  further  increase  of  slave  repre 
sentation  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives. 


SPEECH    AT    MARSHFIELD. 

DELIVERED  AT  A  MEETING   OF   THE    CITIZENS    OF    MARSHFIELD,   MASS.,   ON 
THE  IST  OF  SEPTEMBER,   1848. 


[THE  following  correspondence  explains 
the  occasion  of  the  meeting  at  Marshfield, 
at  which  the  following  speech  was  deliv 
ered. 

"  Marshfield,  Mass.,  Aug.  2,  1848. 
"  HON.  DANIEL  WEBSTER:  — 

"Dear  Sir,  —  The  undersigned,  Whigs  and 
fellow-citizens  of  yours,  are  desirous  of  seeing 
and  conferring  with  you  on  the  subject  of  our 
national  policy,  and  of  hearing  your  opinions 
freely  expressed  thereon.  Wre  look  anxiously 
on  the  present  aspect  of  public  affairs,  and  on 
the  position  in  which  the  Whig  party,  and  espe 
cially  Northern  Whigs,  are  now  placed.  We 
should  be  grieved  indeed  to  see  General  Cass  — 
so  decided  an  opponent  of  all  those  measures 
which  we  think  essential  to  the  honor  and  inter 
ests  of  the  country  and  the  prosperity  of  all 
classes  —  elected  to  the  chief  magistracy.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  to  be  concealed,  that 
there  is  much  discontent  with  the  nomination 
made  by  the  late  Philadelphia  Convention,  of  a 
Southern  man,  a  military  man,  fresh  from  bloody 
h'elds,  and  known  only  by  his  sword,  as  a  Whig 
candidate  for  the  Presidency. 

"  So  far  as  is  in  our  humble  ability,  we  desire 
to  preserve  the  Union  and  the  Whig  party,  and 
to  perpetuate  Whig  principles  ;  but  we  wish  to 
see  also  that  these  principles  may  be  preserved, 
and  this  Union  perpetuated,  in  a  manner  consist 
ent  with  the  rights  of  the  Free  States,  and  the 
prevention  of  the  farther  extension  of  the  slave 
power;  and  we  dread  the  effects  of  the  prece 
dent,  which  we  think  eminently  dangerous,  and 
as  not  exhibiting  us  in  a  favorable  light  to  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  of  elevating  a  mere  military 
man  to  the  Presidency. 

"  We  think  a  crisis  is  upon  us ;  and  we  would 
gladly  know  how  we  may  best  discharge  our 
duties  as  true  Americans,  honest  men,  and  good 
Whigs.  To  you,  who  have  been  so  long  in  pub 
lic  life,  and  are  able  from  your  great  experience 
and  unrivalled  ability  to"  give  us  information 
and  advice,  and  upon  whom,  as  neighbors  and 
friends,  we  think  we  have  some  claims,  we  nat 
urally  look,  and  we  should  be  exceedingly  grat 
ified  If,  in  any  way,  public  or  private,  you  would 
express  your  opinion  upon  interesting  public 
questions*  now  pending,  with  that  boldness  and 
distinctness  with  which  you  are  accustomed  to 
declare  your  sentiments.  If  you  can  concur 


with  our  wishes,  please  signify  to  us  in  what 
manner  it  would  be  most  agreeable  to  you  that 
they  should  be  carried  into  effect. 

"  With  very  great  regard,  your  obedient  ser 
vants, 

"DANIEL  PHILLIPS, 
GEORGE  LEONARD, 
GEO.  H.  WETHERHEE, 
and  many  others." 

To  this  invitation  Mr.  Webster  returned 
the  following  reply  :  — 

"  Marslifidd,  Any.  3,  1848. 

"  GENTLEMEN,  —  I  have  received  your  letter. 
The  critical  state  of  things  at  Washington  obliges 
me  to  think  it  my  duty  to  repair  thither  imme 
diately  and  take  my  seat  in  the  Senate,  notwith 
standing  the  state  of  my  health  and  the  heat  of 
the  weather  render  it  disagreeable  tor  me  to  leave 
home. 

"  I  cannot,  therefore,  comply  with  your  wishes 
at  present;  but  on  my  return,  if  such  should 
continue  to  be  your  desire,  I  will  meet  you  and 
the  other  Whigs  of  Marshtield.  in  an  unceremo 
nious  manner,  that  we  may  confer  upon  the  top 
ics  to  which  your  letter  relates. 

"I  am,  Gentlemen,  with  esteem  and  friend 
ship, 

"  Your  obliged  fellow-citizen, 

'•  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

"  To  Messrs.  DANIEL  PHILLIPS,  GEORGE  LEON 
ARD,  GEO.  H.  WETHERUEE,  and  others. 

Soon  after  Mr.  Webster's  return  from 
Washington,  it  was  arranged  that  the  meet 
ing  should  take  place  at  the  "  Winslow 
House,"  the  ancient  seat  of  the  Winslow 
family,  now  forming  a  part  of  Mr.  Web 
ster's  farm  at  Marshfield,  on  Friday,  the 
first  day  of  September.] 

ALTHOUGH  it  is  not  my  purpose,  dur 
ing  the  present  recess  of  Congress, 
frequently  to  address  public  assemblies 
on  political  subjects,  I  have  felt  it  my 
duty  to  comply  with  your  request,  as 
neighbors  and  townsmen,  and  to  meet 
you  to-day;  and  I  am  not  unwilling  to 


576 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  signify 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States  my 
opinions  upon  the  present  state  of  our 
public  affairs.  I  shall  perform  that 
duty,  certainly  with  great  frankness,  I 
hope  with  candor.  It  is  not  my  inten 
tion  to-day  to  endeavor  to  carry  any 
point,  to  act  as  any  man's  advocate,  to 
put  up  or  put  down  anybody.  I  wish, 
and  I  propose,  to  address  you  in  the  lan 
guage  and  in  the  spirit  of  conference  and 
consultation.  In  the  present  extraordi 
nary  crisis  of  our  public  concerns,  I  de 
sire  to  hold  no  man's  conscience  but  my 
own.  My  own  opinions  1  shall  commu 
nicate,  freely  and  fearlessly,  with  equal 
disregard  to  consequences,  whether  they 
respect  myself  or  respect  others. 

We  are  on  the  eve  of  a  highly  impor 
tant  Presidential  election.  In  two  or 
three  months  the  people  of  this  country 
will  be  called  upon  to  elect  an  executive 
chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States; 
and  all  see,  and  all  feel,  that  great  in 
terests  of  the  country  are  to  be  affected, 
for  good  or  evil,  by  the  results  of  that 
election.  Of  the  interesting  subjects 
over  which  the  person  who  shall  be 
elected  must  necessarily  exercise  more 
or  less  control,  there  are  especially  three, 
vitally  connected,  in  my  judgment,  with 
the  honor  and  happiness  of  the  country. 
In  the  first  place,  the  honor  and  happi 
ness  of  the  country  imperatively  require 
that  there  shall  be  a  chief  magistrate 
elected  who  shall  not  plunge  us  into 
further  wars  of  ambition  and  conquest. 
In  the  second  place,  in  my  judgment, 
the  interests  of  the  country  and  the  feel 
ing  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  people 
require  that  a  President  of  these  United 
States  should  be  elected,  who  will  nei 
ther  use  official  influence  to  promote, 
nor  feel  any  desire  in  his  heart  to  pro 
mote,  the  further  extension  of  slavery 
in  this  community,  or  its  further  influ 
ence  in  the  public  councils.  In  the  third 
place,  if  I  have  any  just  estimate,  if  an 
experience  not  now  a  short  one  in  public 
affairs  has  enabled  me  to  know  any  thing 
of  what  the  public  interest  demands,  the 
state  of  the  country  requires  an  essential 
reform  in  the  system  of  revenue  and 
finance,  such  as  shall  restore  the  pros 


perity,  by  prompting  the  industry  and 
fostering  the  labor  of  the  country,  in  its 
various  branches.  There  are  other 
things  important,  but  I  will  not  allude 
to  them.  These  three  I  hold  to  be 
essential. 

There  are  three  candidates  presented 
to  the  choice  of  the  American  people. 
General  Taylor  is  the  Whig  candidate, 
standing  up6n  the  nomination  of  the 
Whig  Convention  ;  General  Cass  is  the 
candidate  of  the  opposing  and  now 
dominant  party  in  the  country;  and  a 
third  candidate  is  presented  in  the  per 
son  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  by  a  convention 
of  citizens  assembled  at  Buffalo,  whose 
object,  or  whose  main  object,  as  it  ap 
pears  to  me,  is  contained  in  one  of  those 
considerations  which  I  have  mentioned ; 
and  that  is,  the  prevention  of  the  fur 
ther  increase  of  slavery ;  —  an  object  in 
which  you  and  I.  Gentlemen,  so  far  as 
that  goes,  entirely  concur  with  them,  I 
am  sure. 

Most  of  us  who  are  here  to-day  are 
Whigs,  National  Whigs,  Massachusetts 
Whigs,  Old  Colony  Whigs,  and  Marsh- 
field  Whigs,  and  if  the  Whig  nomina 
tion  made  at  Philadelphia  were  entirely 
satisfactory  to  the  people  of  Massa 
chusetts  and  to  us,  our  path  of  duty 
would  be  plain.  But  the  nomination  of 
a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  made  by 
the  Whig  Convention  at  Philadelphia  is 
not  satisfactory  to  the  Whigs  of  Massa 
chusetts.  That  is  certain,  and  it  would 
be  idle  to  attempt  to  conceal  the  fact. 
It  is  more  just  and  more  patriotic,  it 
is  more  manly  and  practical,  to  take 
facts  as  they  are,  and  things  as  they 
are,  and  to  deduce  our  own  convic 
tion  of  duty  from  what  exists  before 
us.  However  respectable  and  distin 
guished  in  the  line  of  his  own  profes 
sion,  or  however  estimable  as  a  private 
citizen,  General  Taylor  is  a  military 
man,  and  a  military  man  merely.  He 
has  had  no  training  in  civil  affairs.  He 
has  performed  no  functions  of  a  civil 
nature  under  the  Constitution  of  his 
country.  He  has  been  known  and  is 
known,  only  by  his  brilliant  achieve 
ments  at  the  head  of  an  army.  Now 
the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts,  and  I 


SPEECH  AT  MAKSHFIELD. 


577 


among  them,  are  of  opinion  that  it  was 
not  wise,  nor  discreet,  to  go  to  the  army 
for  the  selection  of  a  candidate  for  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States.  It  is 
the  first  instance  in  their  history  in 
which  any  man  of  mere  military  char 
acter  has  been  proposed  for  that  high 
office.  General  Washington  was  a  great 
military  character ;  but  by  far  a  greater 
civil  character.  He  had  been  employed 
in  the  councils  of  his  country,  from  the 
earliest  dawn  of  the  Revolution.  He 
had  been  in  the  Continental  Congress, 
and  he  had  established  a  great  character 
for  civil  wisdom  and  judgment.  After 
the  war,  as  you  knowr,  he  was  elected  a 
member  of  that  convention  which  formed 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  most  honorable 
tributes  ever  paid  to  him,  that  by  that 
assembly  of  good  and  wise  men  he  was 
selected  to  preside  over  their  delibera 
tions.  And  he  put  his  name  first  and 
foremost  to  the  Constitution  under  which 
we  live.  President  Harrison  was  bred 
a  soldier,  and  at  different  periods  of  his 
life  rendered  important  military  services. 
But  President  Harrison,  nevertheless, 
was  for  a  much  greater  period  of  his 
life  employed  in  civil  than  in  military 
service.  For  twenty  years  he  was  either 
governor  of  a  Territory,  member  of  one 
or  the  other* house  of  Congress,  or  minis 
ter  abroad;  and  discharged  all  these 
duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  country. 
This  case,  therefore,  stands  by  itself; 
without  a  precedent  or  justification  from 
any  thing  in  our  previous  history.  It  is 
for  this  reason,  as  I  imagine,  that  the 
Whigs  of  Massachusetts  feel  dissatis 
fied  with  this  nomination.  There  may 
be  other  reasons,  there  are  others;  they 
are,  perhaps,  of  less  importance,  and 
more  easily  to  be  answered.  But  this 
is  a  well-founded  objection ;  and  in  my 
opinion  it  ought  to  have  prevailed,  and 
to  have  prevented  this  nomination.  I 
know  enough  of  history  to  see  the  dan 
gerous  tendency  of  such  resorts  to  mili 
tary  popularity. 

But,  if  I  may  borrow  a  mercantile  ex 
pression,  I  may  now  venture  to  say,  that 
there  is  another  side  to  this  account. 
The  impartiality  with  which  I  propose 


to  discharge  my  duty  to-day  requires 
that  it  should  be  stated.  And,  in  the 
first  place,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that 
General  Taylor  has  been  nominated  by 
a  Whig  convention,  held  in  conformity 
with  the  usages  of  the  Whig  party,  and, 
so  far  as  I  know,  fairly  nominated.  It 
is  to  be  considered,  also,  that  he  is  the 
only  AVhig  before  the  people,  as  a  candi 
date  for  the  Presidency;  and  no  citizen 
of  the  country,  with  any  effect,  can  vote 
for  any  other  Whig,  let  his  preferences 
be  what  they  might  or  may. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  proper  to  con 
sider  the  personal  character  of  General 
Taylor,  and  his  political  opinions,  rela 
tions,  and  connections, -so  far  as  they  are 
known.  In  advancing  to  a  few  observa 
tions  on  this  part  of  the  case,  I  wish 
everybody  to  understand  that  I  have 
no  personal  acquaintance  whatever  with 
General  Taylor.  I  never  saw  him  but 
once,  and  that  but  for  a  few  moments  in 
the  Senate.  The  sources  of  informa 
tion  are  open  to  you,  as  well  as  to  me, 
from  which  I  derive  what  I  know  of  his 
character  and  opinions.  But  I  have 
endeavored  to  obtain  access  to  those 
sources.  I  have  endeavored  to  inform 
and  instruct  myself  by  communication 
with  those  who  have  known  him  in  his 
profession  as  a  soldier,  in  his  associa 
tions  as  a  man,  in  his  conversations  and 
opinions  on  political  subjects ;  and  I  will 
tell  you  frankly  what  I  think  of  him, 
according  to  the  best  lights  which  I  have 
been  able  to  obtain. 

I  need  not  say,  that  he  is  a  skilful, 
brave,  and  gallant  soldier.  That  is  ad 
mitted  by  all.  With  me,  all  that  goes 
but  very  little  way  to  make  out  the 
proper  qualifications  for  President  of 
the  United  States.  But  what  is  more 
important,  I  believe  that  he  is  an  entirely 
honest  and  upright  man.  I  believe  that 
he  is  modest,  clear-headed,  of  indepen 
dent  and  manly  character,  possessing  a 
mind  trained  by  proper  discipline  and 
self-control.  I  believe  that  he  is  esti 
mable  and  amiable  in  all  the  relations  of 
private  life.  I  believe  that  he  possesses 
a  reputation  for  equity  and  fair  judg 
ment,  which  gives  him  an  influence  over 
those  under  his  command  beyond  what 


578 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


is  conferred  by  the  authority  of  station. 
I  believe  that  he  is  a  man  possessing  the 
confidence  and  attachment  of  all  who 
have  been  near  him  and  know  him. 
And  I  believe,  that,  if  elected  President, 
he  will  do  his  best  to  relieve  the  country 
from  present  evils,  and  guard  it  against 
future  dangers.  So  much  for  what  I 
think  of  the  personal  character  of  Gen 
eral  Taylor. 

I  will  say,  too,  that,  so  far  as  I  have- 
observed,  his  conduct  since  he  has  been 
a  candidate  for  the  office  of  President 
has  been  irreproachable.  I  hear  no  in 
trigue  imputed  to  him,  no  contumelious 
treatment  of  rivals.  I  do  not  find  him 
making  promises  or  holding  out  hopes 
to  any  men  or  any  party.  I  do  not  find 
him  putting  forth  any  pretensions  of  his 
own,  and  therefore  I  think  of  him  very 
much  as  he  seems  to  think  of  himself, 
that  he  is  an  honest  man,  of  an  inde 
pendent  mind  and  of  upright  intentions. 
And  as  for  the  subject  of  his  qualifica 
tions  for  the  Presidency,  he  has  himself 
nothing  to  say  about  it. 

And  now,  friends  and  fellow-towns 
men,  with  respect  to  his  political  opin 
ions  and  relations,  I  can  say  at  once, 
that  I  believe  him  to  be  a  Whig ;  I  be 
lieve  him  to  hold  to  the  main  doctrines 
of  the  Whig  party.  To  think  otherwise 
would  be  to  impute  to  him  a  degree  of 
tergiversation  and  fraudulent  deception 
of  which  I  suppose  him  to  be  entirely 
incapable. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  worth  our  while  to 
consider  in  what  manner  General  Taylor 
has  become  a  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency  of  the  United  States.  It  would 
be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  he 
was  made  such  merely  by  the  nomination 
of  the  Philadelphia  Convention.  He  had 
been  nominated  for  the  Presidency  in  a 
great  many  States,  by  various  conven 
tions  and  meetings  of  the  people,  a  year 
before  the  convention  at  Philadelphia 
assembled.  The  whole  history  of  the 
world  shows,  whether  in  the  most  civil 
ized  or  the  most  barbarous  ages,  that  the 
affections  and  admiration  of  mankind 
are  at  all  times  easily  carried  away  to 
wards  successful  military  achievements. 
The  story  of  all  republics  and  of  all  free 


governments  shows  this.  We  know  in 
the  case  jaow  before  us,  that  so  soon  as 
brilliant  success  had  attended  General 
Taylor's  operations  on  the  Rio  Grande, 
at  Palo  Alto,  and  Monterey,  spontane 
ous  nominations  of  him  sprang  up. 

And  here  let  me  say,  that,  generally, 
these  were  Whig  nominations.  Not  uni 
versally,  but  generally,  these  nomina 
tions,  made  at  various  times  before  the 
meeting  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention, 
were  Whig  nominations.  General  Tay 
lor  was  esteemed,  from  the  moment  that 
his  military  achievements  brought  him 
into  public  notice,  as  a  Whig  general. 
You  all  remember,  that  when  we  were 
discussing  his  merits  in  Congress,  upon 
the  question  of  giving  thanks  to  the 
army  under  his  command,  and  to  him 
self,  among  other  objections,  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  Mr.  Polk's  adminis 
tration  denounced  him  as  being,  and  be 
cause  he  was,  a  Whig  general.  My 
friends  near  me,  whom  I  am  happy  to 
see  here,  belonging  to  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  will  remember  that  a  lead 
ing  man  of  the  party  of  the  administra 
tion  declared  in  his  place  in  Congress, 
that  the  policy  of  the  administration, 
connected  with  the  Mexican  war,  would 
never  prosper,  till  the  President  recalled 
those  Whig  generals,  Scott  and  Taylor. 
The  policy  wras  a  Democratic  policy. 
The  argument  was,  that  the  men  to 
carry  out  this  policy  should  be  Demo 
cratic  men;  the  officers  to  fight  the 
battles  should  be  Democratic  officers; 
and  on  that  ground,  the  ordinary  vote  of 
thanks  was  refused  to  General  Taylor, 
on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the  admin 
istration. 

Let  me  remark,  in  the  next  place, 
that  there  was  no  particular  purpose  con 
nected  with  the  advancement  of  slavery 
entertained,  generally,  by  those  who 
nominated  him.  As  I  have  said,  they 
were  Whig  nominations,  more  in  the 
Middle  and  Northern  than  in  the  South 
ern  States,  and  by  persons  who  never 
entertained  the  slightest  desire,  by  his 
nomination,  or  by  any  other  means,  to 
extend  the  area  of  slavery  of  the  human 
race,  or  the  influence  of  the  slave-holding 
States  in  the  councils  of  the  nation. 


SPEECH  AT   MARSHFIELD. 


579 


The  Quaker  city  of  Philadelphia  nomi 
nated  General  Taylor,  the  Whigs  all 
over  the  Union  nominated  him,  with  no 
such  view.  A  great  convention  was  as 
sembled  in  New  York,  of  highly  influ 
ential  and  respectable  gentlemen,  very 
many  of  them  well  known  to  me,  and 
they  nominated  General  Taylor  with  no 
such  view.  General  Taylor's  nomina 
tion  was  hailed,  not  very  extensively, 
but  by  some  enthusiastic  and  not  very 
far-seeing  people  in  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts.  There  were,  even 
among  us,  in  our  own  State,  Whigs 
quite  early  enough,  certainly,  in  mani 
festing  their  confidence  in  this  nomina 
tion;  a  little  too  early,  it  may  be,  in 
uttering  notes  of  exultation  for  the  an 
ticipated  triumph.  It  would  have  been 
better  if  they  had  waited. 

Now  the  truth  is,  Gentlemen, —and 
no  man  can  avoid  seeing  it,  unless,  as 
sometimes  happens,  the  object  is  too 
near  our  eyes  to  be  distinctly  discerned, 
—  the  truth  is,  that  in  these  nomina 
tions,  and  also  in  the  nomination  at 
Philadelphia,  in  these  conventions,  and 
also  in  the  convention  at  Philadelphia, 
General  Taylor  was  nominated  exactly 
for  this  reason;  —  that,  believing  him  to 
be  a  Whig,  they  thought  he  could  be 
chosen  more  easily  than  any  other  Whig. 
This  is  the  whole  of  it.  That  saga 
cious,  wise,  far-seeing  doctrine  of  avail 
ability  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole 
matter.  So  far,  then,  from  imputing 
any  motive  to  these  conventions  over 
the  country,  or  to  the  convention  in 
Philadelphia,  as  operating  on  a  major 
ity  of  the.  members,  to  promote  slavery 
by  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor, 
I  do  not  believe  a  word  of  it,  —  not  one 
word.  I  see  that  one  part  of  what  is 
called  the  Platform  of  the  Buffalo  Con 
vention  says  that  the  candidates  before 
the  public  were  nominated  under  the 
dictation  of  the  slave  power.  I  do  not 
believe  a  word  of  it. 

In  the  first  place,  a  very  great  majority 
of  the  convention  at  Philadelphia  was 
composed  of  members  from  the  Free 
States.  By  a  very  great  majority  they 
might  have  nominated  anybody  they 
chose.  But  the  Free  States  did  not 


choose  to  nominate  a  Free  State  man,  or 
a  Northern  man.  Even  our  neighbors, 
the  States  of  New  England,  with  the 
exception  of  New  Hampshire  and  a 
part  of  Maine,  neither  proposed  nor 
concurred  in  the  nomination  of  any 
Northern  man.  Vermont  would  hear  of 
nothing  but  the  nomination  of  a  South 
ern  and  slave-holding  candidate.  Con 
necticut  was  of  the  same  mind,  and  so 
was  Rhode  Island.  The  North  made  no 
demand,  nor  presented  any  request  for  a 
Northern  candidate,  nor  attempted  any 
union  among  themselves  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  the  nomination  of  such  a 
candidate.  They  were  content  to  take 
their  choice  among  the  candidates  of  the 
South.  It  is  preposterous,  therefore,  to 
pretend  that  a  candidate  from  the  Slave 
States  has  been  forced  upon  the  North 
by  Southern  dictation. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  true  that  there 
were  persons  from  New  England  who 
were  extremely  zealous  and  active  in  pro 
curing  the  nomination  of  General  Tay 
lor,  but  they  were  men  who  would  cut 
oif  their  right  hands  before  they  would 
do  any  thing  to  promote  slavery  in  the 
United  States.  I  do  not  admire  their 
policy ;  indeed  I  have  very  little  respect 
for  it,  understand  that;  but  I  acquit 
them  of  bad  motives.  I  know  the  lead 
ing  men  in  that  convention.  I  think  I 
understand  the  motives  that  governed 
them.  Their  reasoning  was  this :  ' '  Gen 
eral  Taylor  is  a  Whig;  not  eminent  in 
civil  life,  not  known  in  civil  life,  but 
still  a  man  of  sound  Whig  principles. 
Circumstances  have  given  him  a  reputa 
tion  and  eclat  in  the  country.  If  he  shall 
be  the  Whig  candidate,  he  will  be 
chosen;  and  with  him  there  will  come 
into  the  two  houses  of  Congress  an 
augmentation  of  Whig  strength.  The 
Whig  majority  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  will  be  increased.  The  Demo 
cratic  majority  in  the  Senate  will  be 
diminished.  That  was  the  view,  and 
such  was  the  motive,  however  wise  or 
however  unwise,  that  governed  a  very 
large  majority  of  those  who  composed 
the  convention  at  Philadelphia.  In 
my  opinion,  this  was  a  wholly  unwise 
policy ;  it  was  short-sighted  and  temper- 


580 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


izing  on  questions  of  great  principles. 
But  I  acquit  those  who  adopted  it  of  any 
such  motives  as  have  been  ascribed  to 
them,  and  especially  of  what  has  been 
ascribed  to  them  in  a  part  of  this  Buffalo 
Platform. 

Such,  Gentlemen,  are  the  circum 
stances  connected  with  the  nomination 
of  General  Taylor.  I  only  repeat,  that 
those  who  had  the  greatest  agency  origi 
nally  in  bringing  him  before  the  people 
were  Whig  conventions  and  Whig  meet 
ings  in  the  several  States,  Free  States, 
and  that  a  great  majority  of  that  con 
vention  which  nominated  him  in  Phila 
delphia  was  from  the  Free  States,  and 
might  have  rejected  him  if  they  had 
chosen,  and  selected  anybody  else  on 
whom  they  could  have  united. 

This  is  the  case,  Gentlemen,  as  far  as 
I  can  discern  it,  and  exercising  upon  it 
as  impartial  a  judgment  as  I  can  form, 
—this  is  the  case  presented  to  the  Whigs, 
so  far  as  respects  the  personal  fitness 
and  personal  character  of  General .  Tay 
lor,  and  the  circumstances  which  have 
caused  his  nomination.  If  we  were 
weighing  the  propriety  of  nominating 
such  a  person  to  the  Presidency,  it  would 
be  one  thing;  if  we  are  considering  the 
expediency,  or  I  may  say  the  necessity 
(which  to  some  minds  may  seem  to  be 
the  case),  of  well-meaning  and  patriotic 
Whigs  supporting  him  after  he  is  nom 
inated,  that  is  quite  another  thing. 

This  leads  us  to  the  consideration  of 
what  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts  are  to 
do,  or  such  of  them  as  do  not  see  fit  to 
support  General  Taylor.  Of  course  they 
must  vote  for  General  Cass,  or  they  must 
vote  for  Mr.  Van  Buren,  or  they  must 
omit  to  vote  at  all.  I  agree  that  there 
are  cases  in  which,  if  we  do  not  know  in 
what  direction  to  move,  we  ought  to 
stand  still  till  we  do.  I  admit  that 
there  are  cases  in  which,  if  one  does  not 
know  what  to  do,  he  had  better  not  do 
he  knows  not  what.  But  on  a  question 
so  important  to  ourselves  and  the  coun 
try,  on  a  question  of  a  popular  election 
under  constitutional  forms,  in  which  it 
is  impossible  that  every  man's  private 
judgment  can  prevail,  on  every  man's 
private  choice  succeed,  it  becomes  a 


question  of  conscientious  duty  and  pa 
triotism,  jvhat  it  is  best  to  do  upon  the 
whole. 

Under  the  practical  administration  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
there  cannot  be  a  great  range  of  personal 
choice  in  regard  to  the  candidate  for  the 
Presidency.  In  order  that  their  votes 
may  be  effective,  men  must  give  them 
for  some  ong  of  those  who  are  promi 
nently  before  the  public.  This  is  the 
necessary  result  of  our  forms  of  govern 
ment  and  of  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution.  The  people  are  therefore 
brought  sometimes  to  the  necessity  of 
choosing  between  candidates  neither  of 
whom  would  be  their  original,  personal 
choice. 

Now,  what  is  the  contingency?  What 
is  the  alternative  presented  to  the  Whigs 
of  Massachusetts?  In  my  judgment, 
fellow-citizens,  it  is  simply  this;  the 
question  is  between  General  Taylor  and 
General  Cass.  And  that  is  the  only 
question.  I  am  no  more  skilled  to 
foresee  political  occurrences  than  others. 
I  judge  only  for  myself.  But,  in  my 
opinion,  there  is  not  the  least  proba 
bility  of  any  other  result  than  the  choice 
of  General  Taylor  or  General  Cass.  I 
know  that  the  enthusiasm  of  a  new- 
formed  party,  that  the  popularity  of  a 
new-formed  name,  without  communicat 
ing  any  new-formed  idea,  may  lead  men 
to  think  that  the  sky  is  to  fall,  and  that 
larks  are  suddenly  to  be  taken.  I  enter 
tain  no  such  expectations.  I  speak  with 
out  disrespect  of  the  Free  Soil  party.  I 
have  read  their  platform,  and  though  I 
think  there  are  some  unsound  places  in 
it,  I  can  stand  on  it  pretty  well.  But  I 
see  nothing  in  it  both  new  and  valuable. 
"  What  is  valuable  is  not  new,  and  what 
is  new  is  not  valuable."  If  the  term 
Free  Soil  party,  or  Free  Soil  men,  desig 
nate  those  who  are  fixed,  and  unalter 
ably  fixed,  in  favor  of  the  restriction  of 
slavery,  are  so  to-day  and  were  so  yes 
terday,  and  have  been  so  for  some  time, 
then  I  hold  myself  to  be  as  good  a  Free 
Soil  man  as  any  of  the  Buffalo  Conven 
tion.  I  pray  to  know  who  is  to  put  be 
neath  my  feet  a  freer  soil  than  that  upon 
which  I  have  stood  ever  since  I  have  been 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


581 


in  public  life?  I  pray  to  know  who  is 
to  make  my  lips  freer  than  they  always 
have  been,  or  to  inspire  into  my  breast 
a  more  resolute  and  fixed  determination 
to  resist  the  advances  and  encroachments 
of  the  slave  power,  than  has  inhabited  it 
since  I  for  the  first  time  opened  my 
mouth  in  the  councils  of  the  country? 
The  gentlemen  at  Buffalo  have  placed 
at  the  head  of  their  party  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  a  gentleman  for  whom  I  have  all 
the  respect  that  I  ought  to  entertain  for 
one  with  whom  I  have  been  associated, 
in  some  degree,  in  public  life  for  many 
years,  and  who  has  held  the  highest  offi 
ces  in  the  country.  But  really,  speaking 
for  myself,  if  I  were  to  express  confi 
dence  in  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his  politics 
on  any  question,  and  most  especially  this 
very  question  of  slavery,  I  think  the  scene 
would  border  upon  the  ludicrous,  if  not 
upon  the  contemptible.  I  never  pro 
posed  any  thing  in  my  life  of  a  general 
and  public  nature,  that  Mr.  Van  Buren 
did  not  oppose.  Nor  has  it  happened  to 
me  to  support  any  important  measure 
proposed  by  him.  If  he  and  I  now  were 
to  find  ourselves  together  under  the  Free 
Soil  flag,  I  am  sure*  that,  with  his  accus 
tomed  good  nature,  he  would  laugh.  If 
nobody  were  present,  we  should  both 
laugh  at  the  strange  occurrences  and 
stranger  jumbles  of  political  life  that 
should  have  brought  us  to  sit  down 
cosily  and  snugly,  side  by  side,  on  the 
same  platform.  That  the  leader  of  the 
Free  Spoil  party  should  so  suddenly  have 
become  the  leader  of  the  Free  Soil  party 
would  be  a  joke  to  shake  his  sides  and 
mine. 

Gentlemen,  my  first  acquaintance  in 
public  life  with  Mr.  Van  Buren  was 
when  he  was  pressing  with  great  power 
the  election  of  Mr.  Crawford  to  the 
Presidency,  against  Mr.  Adams.  Mr. 
Crawford  was  not  elected,  and  Mr. 
Adams  was.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  in 
the  Senate  nearly  the  whole  of  that  ad 
ministration ;  and  during  the  remainder 
of  it  he  was  Governor  of  the  State  of 
Xew  York.  It  is  notorious  that  he  was 
the  soul  and  centre,  throughout  the  whole 
of  Mr.  Adams's  term,  of  the  opposition 
made  to  him.  He  did  more  to  prevent 


Mr.  Adams's  re-election  in  1828,  and  to 
obtain  General  Jackson's  election,  than 
any  other  man,  —  yes,  than  any  ten  other 
men  in  the  country. 

General  Jackson  was  chosen,  and  Mr. 
Van  Buren  was  appointed  his  Secretary 
of  State.  It  so  happened  that  in  July, 
1829,  Mr.  McLane  went  to  England  to 
arrange  the  controverted,  difficult,  and 
disputed  point  on  the  subject  of  the 
colonial  trade.  Mr.  Adams  had  held  a 
high  tone  on  that  subject.  He  had  de 
manded,  on  the  ground  of  reciprocity 
and  right,  the  introduction  of  our  prod 
ucts  into  all  parts  of  the  British  terri 
tory,  freely,  in  our  own  vessels,  since 
Great  Britain  was  allowed  to  bring  her 
produce  into  the  United  States  upon  the 
same  terms.  Mr.  Adams  placed  this  de 
mand  upon  the  ground  of  reciprocity  and 
justice.  Great  Britain  would  not  yield. 
Mr.  Van  Buren,  in  his  instructions  to 
Mr.  McLane,  told  him  to  yield  that 
question  of  right,  and  to  solicit  the  free 
admission  of  American  produce  into  the 
British  colonies,  on  the  ground  of  privi 
lege  and  favor;  intimating  that  there 
had  been  a  change  of  parties,  and  that 
this  favor  ought  not  to  be  refused  to 
General  Jackson's  administration  be 
cause  it  had  been  demanded  on  the 
ground  of  right  by  Mr.  Adams's.  This 
is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  instruc 
tion. 

Well,  Gentlemen,  it  was  one  of  the 
most  painful  duties  of  my  life,  on  ac 
count  of  this,  to  refuse  my  assent  to  Mr. 
Van  Buren 's  nomination.  It  was  novel 
in  our  history,  when  an  administration 
changes,  for  the  new  administration  to 
seek  to  obtain  privileges  from  a  foreign 
power  on  the  assertion  that  they  have 
abandoned  the  ground  of  their  predeces 
sors.  I  suppose  that  such  a  course  is 
held  to  be  altogether  undignified  by  all 
public  men.  When  I  went  into  the  De 
partment  of  State  under  General  Harri 
son,  I  found  in  the  conduct  of  my  prede 
cessor  many  things  that  I  could  have 
wished  had  been  otherwise.  Did  I  re 
tract  a  jot  or  tittle  of  what  Mr.  Forsyth 
had  said?  I  took  the  case  as  he  had  left 
it,  and  conducted  it  upon  the  principles 
which  he  left.  I  should  have  considered 


582 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


that  I  disgraced  myself  if  I  had  said, 
"  Pray,  my  Lord  Ashburton,  we  are 
more  rational  persons  than  our  prede 
cessors,  we  are  more  considerate  than 
they,  and  intend  to  adopt  an  entirely 
opposite  policy.  Consider,  my  dear 
Lord,  how  much  more  friendly,  reason 
able,  and  amiable  we  are  than  our  pre 
decessors." 

But  now,  on  this  very  subject  of  the 
extension  of  the  slave  power,  I  would 
by  no  means  do  the  least  injustice  to 
Mi*.  Van  Buren.  If  he  has  corne  up  to 
some  of  the  opinions  expressed  in  the 
platform  of  the  Buffalo  Convention,  I 
am  very  glad  of  it.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  there  may  not  be  very  good  rea 
sons  for  those  of  his  own  party  who  can 
not  conscientiously  vote  for  General  Cass 
to  vote  for  him,  because  I  think  him 
much  the  least  dangerous  of  the  two. 
But,  in  truth,  looking  at  Mr.  Van  Bu- 
ren's  conduct  as  President  of  the  United 
States,  I  am  amazed  to  find  that  he 
should  be  placed  at  the  head  of  a  party 
professing  to  be,  beyond  all  other  par 
ties,  friends  of  liberty  and  enemies  of 
African  slavery  in  the  Southern  States. 
Why,  the  very  first  thing  that  Mr.  Van 
Buren  did  after  he  was  President  was  to 
declare,  that,  if  Congress  interfered  with 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  he 
would  apply  the  veto  to  their  bills.  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  in  his  inaugural  address, 
quotes  the  following  expression  from 
his  letter  accepting  his  nomination:  "I 
must  go  into  the  Presidential  chair  the 
inflexible  and  uncompromising  opponent 
of  every  attempt  on  the  part  of  Con 
gress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  against  the  wishes  of  the 
slave-holding  States;  and  also  with  a 
determination  equally  decided  to  resist 
the  slightest  interference  with  it  in  the 
States  where  it  exists."  He  then  pro 
ceeds:  "I  submitted  also  to  my  fellow- 
citizens,  with  fulness  and  frankness,  the 
reasons  which  led  me  to  this  determina 
tion.  The  result  authorizes  me  to  be 
lieve  that  they  have  been  approved  and 
are  confided  in  by  a  majority  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States,  including  those 
whom  they  most  immediately  affect.  It 
now  only  remains  to  add,  that  no  bill 


conflicting  with  these  views  can  ever 
receive  my  constitutional  sanction." 

In  the  next  place,  we  know  that  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  casting  vote  was  given  for 
a  law  of  very  doubtful  propriety,  —  a 
law  to  allow  postmasters  to  open  the 
mails  and  see  if  there  was  any  incen 
diary  matter  in  them,  and,  if  so,  to  de 
stroy  it.  I  do  not  say  that  there  was  no 
constitutional  power  to  pass  such  a  law. 
Perhaps  the  people  of  the  South  thought 
it  was  necessary  to  protect  themselves 
from  incitements  to  insurrection.  So 
far  as  any  thing  endangers  the  lives  and 
property  of  the  South,  so  far  I  agree  that 
there  »nay  be  such  legislation  in  Congress 
as  shall  prevent  such  results. 

But,  Gentlemen,  no  man  has  exercised 
a  more  controlling  influence  on  the  con 
duct  of  his  friends  in  this  country  than 
Mr.  Van  Buren.  I  take  it  that  the 
most  important  event  in  our  time  tend 
ing  to  the  extension  of  slavery  and  its 
everlasting  establishment  on  this  conti 
nent,  was  the  annexation  of  Texas,  in 
1844.  Where  was  Mr.  Van  Buren  then? 
Let  me  ask,  Three  or  four  years  ago, 
where  was  he  THEN?  Every  friend  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren,  so  far  as  I  know,  sup 
ported  the  measure.  The  two  Senators 
from  New  York  supported  it,  and  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  from  New  York  supported  it,  and 
nobody  resisted  it  but  Whigs.  And  I 
say  in  the  face  of  the  world,  I  say  in 
the  face  of  those  connected  with,  or 
likely  to  be  benefited  by,  the  Buffalo 
Convention, —  I  say  to  all  of  them,  that 
there  has  been  no  party  of  men  in  this 
country  which  has  firmly  and  sternly  re 
sisted  the  progress  of  the  slave  power 
but  the  Whigs. 

Why,  look  to  this  very  question  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas.  We  talk  of 
the  dictation  of  the  slave  power!  At 
least  they  do,  I  do  not.  I  do  not  allow 
that  anybody  dictates  to  me.  They 
talk  of  the  triumph  of  the  South  over 
the  North !  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth 
or  reason  in  the  whole  of  it.  I  am  bound 
to  say  on  my  conscience,  that,  of  all  the 
evils  inflicted  upon  us  by  these  acquisi 
tions  of  slave  territory,  the  North  has 
borne  its  full  part  in  the  infliction. 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


583 


Northern  votes,  in  full  proportion,  have 
been  given  in  both  houses  for  the  ac 
quisition  of  new  territory,  in  which 
slavery  existed.  We  talk  of  the  North. 
There  has  for  a  long  time  been  no  North. 
I  think  the  North  Star  is  at  last  discov 
ered  ;  I  think  there  will  be  a  North ;  but 
up  to  the  recent  session  of  Congress 
there  has  been  no  North,  no  geographi 
cal  section  of  the  country,  in  which 
there  has  been  found  a  strong,  conscien 
tious,  and  united  opposition  to  slavery. 
No  such  North  has  existed. 
Pope  says,  you  know, 

"  Ask  where  's  the  North  ?    At  York,  'tis  on  the 

Tweed ; 

In  Scotland,  at  the  Orcades ;  and  there, 
At  Greenland,  Zembla,  or  the  Lord  knows 
where." 

Now,  if  there  has  heretofore  been 
such  a  North  as  I  have  described,  a 
North  strong  in  opinion  and  united  in 
action  against  slavery,  — if  such  a  North 
has  existed  anywhere,  it  has  existed 
"the  Lord  knows  where,"  I  do  not. 
Why,  on  this  very  question  of  the  ad 
mission  of  Texas,  it  may  be  said  with 
truth,  that  the  North  let  in  Texas. 
The  Whigs,  North  and  South,  resisted 
Texas.  Ten  Senators  from  slave-hold 
ing  States,  of  the  Whig  party,  resisted 
Texas.  Two,  only,  as  I  remember, 
voted  for  it.  But  the  Southern  Whig 
votes  against  Texas  were  overpowered 
by  the  Democratic  votes  from  the  Free 
States,  and  from  New  England  among 
the  rest.  Yes,  if  there  had  not  been 
votes  from  New  England  in  favor  of 
Texas,  Texas  would  have  been  out  of 
the  Union  to  this  day.  Yes,  if  men 
from  New  England  had  been  true,  Texas 
would  have  been  nothing  but  Texas  still. 
There  were  four  votes  in  the  Senate 
from  New  England  in  favor  of  the  ad 
mission  of  Texas,  Mr.  Van  Buren's 
friends,  Democratic  members:  one  from 
Maine ;  two  from  New  Hampshire ;  one 
from  Connecticut.  Two  of  these  gen 
tlemen  were  confidential  friends  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  and  had  both  been  mem 
bers  of  his  cabinet.  They  voted  for 
Texas;  and  they  let  in  Texas,  against 
Southern  Whigs  and  Northern  Whigs. 
That  is  the  truth  of  it,  my  friends.  Mr. 


Van  Buren,  by  the  wave  of  his  hand, 
could  have  kept  out  Texas.  A  word,  a 
letter,  though  it  had  been  even  shorter 
than  General  Cass's  letter  to  the  Chicago 
Convention,  would  have  been  enough, 
and  would  have  done  the  work.  But 
he  was  silent. 

When  Northern  members  of  Congress 
voted,  in  1820,  for  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  against  the  known  will  of  their 
constituents,  they  were  called  "  Dough 
Faces."  I  am  afraid,  fellow-citizens, 
that  the  generation  of  ' '  dough  faces  ' ' 
will  be  as  perpetual  as  the  generation  of 
men. 

In  1844,  as  we  all  know,  Mr.  Van 
Buren  was  a  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency,  on  the  part  of  the  Democratic 
party,  but  lost  the  nomination  at  Balti 
more.  We  now  learn,  from  a  letter  from 
General  Jackson  to  Mr.  Butler,  that  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  claims  were  superseded, 
because,  after  all,  the  South  thought 
that  the  accomplishment  of  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  might  be  more  safely  in 
trusted  to  Southern  hands.  We  all 
know  that  the  Northern  portion  of  the 
Democratic  party  were  friendly  to  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  Our  neighbors  from  New 
Hampshire,  and  Maine,  and  elsewhere, 
were  Van  Buren  men.  But  the  moment 
it  was  ascertained  that  Mr.  Polk  was  the 
favorite  of  the  South,  and  the  favorite 
of  the  South  upon  the  ground  I  have 
mentioned,  as  a  man  more  certain  to 
bring  about  the  annexation  of  Texas 
than  Mr.  Van  Buren,  these  friends  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren  in  the  North  all  "  caved 
in,"  —  not  a  man  of  them  stood.  Mr. 
Van  Buren  himself  wrote  a  letter  very 
complimentary  to  Mr.  Polk  and  Mr. 
Dallas,  and  found  no  fault  with  the 
nomination. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  if  they  were  "  dough 
faces  "  who  voted  for  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  what  epithet  should  describe 
these  men,  here  in  our  New  England, 
who  were  so  ready,  not  only  to  change 
or  abandon  him  whom  they  most  cor 
dially  wished  to  support,  but  did  so  in 
order  to  make  more  sure  the  annexation 
of  Texas.  They  nominated  Mr.  Polk 
at  the  request  of  gentlemen  from  the 
South,  and  voted  for  him,  through 


584 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


thick  and  thin,  till  the  work  was  ac 
complished,  and  Mr.  Polk  elected.  For 
my  part,  I  think  that  "dough  faces" 
is  an  epithet  not  sufficiently  reproach 
ful.  Such  persons  are  dough  faces, 
with  dough  heads,  and  dough  hearts, 
and  dough  souls;  they  are  all  dough; 
the  coarsest  potter  may  mould  them  to 
vessels  of  honor  or  dishonor,  —  most 
readily  to  vessels  of  dishonor. 

But  what  do  we  now  see?  Repent 
ance  has  gone  far.  There  are  among 
these  very  people,  these  very  gentlemen, 
persons  who  espouse,  with  great  zeal, 
the  interests  of  the  Free  Soil  party.  I 
hope  their  repentance  is  as  sincere  as  it 
appears  to  be.  I  hope  it  is  honest  con 
viction,  and  not  merely  a  new  chance 
for  power,  under  a  new  name  and  a  new 
party.  But,  with  all  their  pretensions, 
and  with  all  their  patriotism,  I  see 
dough  still  sticking  on  the  cheeks  of 
some  of  them.  And  therefore  I  have 
no  confidence  in  them,  not  a  particle. 
I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  especially  those  who 
went  to  the  Buffalo  Convention  from 
this  State,  have  not  the  highest  and 
purest  motives.  I  think  they  act  un 
wisely,  but  I  acquit  them  of  dishonest 
intentions.  But  with  respect  to  others, 
and  those  who  have  been  part  and  par 
cel  in  the  measures  which  have  brought 
new  slave  territory  into  this  Union,  I 
distrust  them  all.  If  they  repent,  let 
them,  before  we  trust  them,  do  works 
worthy  of  repentance. 

I  have  said,  Gentlemen,  that  in  my 
opinion,  if  it  were  desirable  to  place 
Mr.  Van  Buren  at  the  head  of  govern 
ment,  there  is  no  chance  for  him. 
Others  are  as  good  judges  as  I  am. 
But  I  am  not  able  to  say  that  I  see  any 
State  in  the  Union  in  which  there  is  a 
reasonable  probability  that  he  will  get 
the  vote.  There  may  be.  Others  are 
more  versed  in  such  statistics  than  I  am. 
But  I  see  none,  and  therefore  I  think 
that  we  are  reduced  to  a  choice  between 
General  Cass  and  General  Taylor.  You 
may  remember,  that  in  the  discussions 
of  1844,  when  Mr.  Birney  was  drawing 
off  votes  from  the  Whig  candidate,  I 
said  that  every  vote  for  Mr.  Birney 


was  half  a  vote  for  Mr.  Polk.  Is  it 
not  true  that  the  vote  of  the  Liber 
ty  party  ^taken  from  Mr.  Clay's  vote 
in  the  State  of  New  York  made  Mr. 
Polk  President?  That  is  as  clear  as  any 
historical  fact.  And  in  my  judgment, 
it  will  be  so  now.  I  consider  every 
Whig  vote  given  to  Mr.  Van  Buren,  as 
directly  aiding  the  election  of  Mr.  Cass. 
Mark,  I  say.  Whig  vote.  There  may  be 
States  in  which  Mr.  Van  Buren  may 
draw  from  the  other  side  largely.  But 
I  speak  of  Whig  votes,  in  this  State  and 
in  any  State.  And  I  am  of  opinion,  that 
any  such  vote  given  to  Mr.  Van  Buren 
inures  to  the  benefit  of  General  Cass. 

Now  as  to  General  Cass,  Gentlemen. 
We  need  not  go  to  the  Baltimore  plat 
form  to  instruct  ourselves  as  to  what  his 
politics  are,  or  how  he  will  conduct  the 
government.  General  Cass  will  go  into 
the  government,  if  at  all,  chosen  by  the 
same  party  that  elected  Mr.  Polk ;  and 
he  will  ' '  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
illustrious  predecessor."  I  hold  him,  I 
confess,  in  the  present  state  of  the  coun 
try,  to  be  the  most  dangerous  man  on 
whom  the  powers  of  the  executive  chief 
magistracy  could  well  be  conferred.  He 
would  consider  himself,  not  as  conser 
vative,  not  as  protective  to  present  insti 
tutions,  but  as  belonging  to  the  party 
of  Progress.  He  believes  in  the  doc 
trine  of  American  destiny  ;  and  that 
that  destiny  is,  to  go  through  wars  and 
invasions,  and  maintain  vast  armies,  to 
establish  a  great,  powerful,  domineering 
government  over  all  this  continent.  We 
know  that,  if  Mr.  Cass  could  have  pre 
vented  it,  the  treaty  with  England  in 
1842  would  not  have  been  made.  We 
know  that,  if  Mr.  Cass  could  have  pre 
vented  it,  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon 
question  would  not  have  been  accom 
plished  in  1846.  We  know  that  General 
Cass  could  have  prevented  the  Mexican 
war;  and  we  know  that  he  was  first 
and  foremost  in  pressing  that  war.  We 
know  that  he  is  a  man  of  talent,  of 
ability,  of  some  celebrity  as  a  states 
man,  in  every  way  superior  to  his  pre 
decessor,  if  he  should  be  the  successor 
of  Mr.  Polk.  But  I  think  him  a  man  of 
rash  politics,  pushed  on  by  a  rash  party, 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


585 


and  committed  to  a  course  of  policy,  as 
I  believe,  not  in  consistency  with  the 
happiness  and  security  of  the  country. 
Therefore  it  is  for  you,  and  for  me,  and 
for  all  of  us,  Whigs,  to  consider  wheth 
er,  in  this  state  of  the  case,  we  can  or 
cannot,  we  will  or  will  not,  give  our 
votes  for  the  Whig  nomination.  I  leave 
that  to  every  man's  conscience.  I  have 
endeavored  to  state  the  case  as  it  pre 
sents  itself  to  me. 

Gentlemen,  before  General  Taylor's 
nomination,  I  stated  always,  when  the 
subject  was  mentioned  by  my  friends, 
that  I  did  not  and  could  not  recommend 
the  nomination  of  a  military  man  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  for  the 
office  of  President.  It  was  against  my 
conviction  of  what  was  due  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  country,  and  to  the  char 
acter  of  the  republic.  I  stated  always, 
at  the  same  time,  that  if  General  Taylor 
should  be  nominated  by  the  Whig  Con 
vention,  fairly,  I  should  not  oppose  his 
election.  I  stand  now  upon  the  same 
declaration.  General  Taylor  has  been 
nominated  fairly,  as  far  as  I  know,  and 
I  cannot,  therefore,  and  shall  not,  op 
pose  his  election.  At  the  same  time, 
there  is  no  man  who  is  more  firmly  of 
opinion  that  such  a  nomination  was  not 
fit  to  be  made.  But  the  declaration  that 
I  would  not  oppose  General  Taylor,  if 
nominated  by  the  Whig  party,  was  of 
course  subject,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
to  some  exceptions.  If  I  believed  him 
to  be  a  man  who  would  plunge  the 
country  into  further  wars  for  any  pur 
pose  of  ambition  or  conquest,  I  would 
oppose  him,  let  him  be  nominated  by 
whom  he  might.  If  I  believed  that  he 
was  a  man  who  would  exert  his  official 
influence  for  the  further  extension  of 
the  slave  power,  I  would  oppose  him, 
let  him  be  nominated  by  whom  he  might. 
But  I  do  not  believe  either.  I  believe 
that  he  has  been,  from  the  first,  opposed 
to  the  policy  of  the  Mexican  war,  as  im 
proper,  impolitic,  and  inexpedient.  I 
believe,  from  the  best  information  I  can 
obtain,  —  and  you  will  take  this  as  my 
own  opinion,  Gentlemen, — I  believe, 
from  the  best  information  I  can  obtain, 
that  he  has  no  disposition  to  go  to  war, 


or  to  form  new  States  in  order  to  in 
crease  the  limits  of  slavery. 

Gentlemen,  so  much  for  what  may  be 
considered  as  belonging  to  the  Presi 
dency  as  a  national  question.  But  the 
case  by  no  means  stops  here.  We 
are  citizens  of  Massachusetts.  We  are 
Whigs  of  Massachusetts.  We  have  sup 
ported  the  present  government  of  the 
State  for  years,  with  success;  and  I  have 
thought  that  most  Whigs  were  satis 
fied  with  the  administration  of  the  State 
government  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  had  it.  But  now  it  is  proposed,  I 
presume,  on  the  basis  of  the  Buffalo 
Platform,  to  carry  this  into  the  State 
elections,  as  well  as  into  the  national 
elections.  There  is  to  be  a  nomination 
of  a  candidate  for  Governor,  against 
Mr.  Briggs,  or  whoever  may  be  nomi 
nated  by  the  Whigs ;  and  there  is  to  be 
a  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor,  against  Mr.  Reed,  or 
whoever  may  be  nominated  by  the  Whigs ; 
and  there  are  to  be  nominations  against 
the  present  members  of  Congress.  Now, 
what  is  the  utility  or  the  necessity  of 
this?  We  have  ten  members  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States.  I  know 
not  ten  men  of  any  party  who  are  more 
zealous,  and  firm,  and  inflexible  in  their 
opposition  against  slavery  in  any  form. 

And  what  will  be  the  result  of  oppos 
ing  their  re-election?  Suppose  that  a 
considerable  number  of  Whigs  secede 
from  the  Whig  party,  and  support  a 
candidate  of  this  new  party,  what  will 
be  the  result?  Do  we  not  know  what 
has  been  the  case  in  this  State?  Do  we 
not  know  that  this  district  has  been  un 
represented  from  month  to  month,  and 
from  year  to  year,  because  there  has  been 
an  opposition  to  as  good  an  ant i slavery 
man  as  breathes  the  air  of  this  district? 
On  this  occasion,  and  even  in  his  own 
presence,  I  may  allude  to  our  Represent 
ative,  Mr.  Hale.  Do  we  want  a  man 
to  give  a  better  vote  in  Congress  than 
Mr.  Hale  gives?  Why,  I  undertake  to 
say  that  there  is  not  gne  of  the  Liberty 
party,  nor  will  there  be  one  of  this  new 
party,  who  will  have  the  least  objection 
to  Mr.  Hale,  except  that  he  was  not 
nominated  by  themselves.  Ten  to  one, 


586 


SPEECH  AT   MARSIIFIELD. 


if  the  Whigs  had  not  nominated  him, 
they  would  have  nominated  him  them 
selves;  doubtless  they  would,  if  he  had 
come  into  their  organization,  and  called 
himself  a  third  party  man. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  I  remember  it  to 
have  occurred,  that,  on  very  important 
questions  in  Congress,  the  vote  was  lost 
for  want  of  two  or  three  members  which 
Massachusetts  might  have  sent,  but 
which,  in  consequence  of  the  division 
of  parties,  she  did  not  send.  And  now 
I  foresee  that,  if  in  this  district  any  con 
siderable  number  of  Whigs  think  it  their 
duty  to  join  in  the  support  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  and  in  the  support  of  gentlemen 
whom  that  party  may  nominate  for  Con 
gress,  the  same  thing  will  take  place, 
and  we  shall  be  without  a  representa 
tive,  in  all  probability,  in  the  first  ses 
sion  of  the  next  Congress,  when  the 
battle  is  to  be  fought  on  this  very  sla 
very  question.  The  same  is  likely  to 
happen  in  other  districts.  I  am  sure 
that  honest,  intelligent,  and  patriotic 
AVhigs  will  lay  this  consideration  to 
their  consciences,  and  judge  of  it  as 
they  think  they  ought  to  do. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  detain  you  but  a 
moment  longer.  You  know  that  I  gave 
my  vote  in  Congress  against  the  treaty 
of  peace  with  Mexico,  because  it  con 
tained  these  cessions  of  territory,  and 
brought  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  with  a  pledge  of  future 
admission  into  the  Union,  the  great, 
vast,  and  almost  unknown  countries  of 
New  Mexico  and  California. 

In  the  session  before  the  last,  one  of  the 
Southern  Whig  Senators,  Mr.  Berrien  of 
Georgia,  had  moved  a  resolution,  to  the 
effect  that  the  war  ought  not  to  be  con 
tinued  for  the  purposes  of  conquest  and 
acquisition.  The  resolution  declared  that 
the  war  with  Mexico  ought  not  to  be 
prosecuted  by  this  government  with  any 
view  to  the  dismemberment  of  that  re 
public,  or  to  the  acquisition,  by  con 
quest,  of  any  portion  of  her  territory. 
That  proposition  he  introduced  into  the 
Senate,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution;  and 
I  believe  that  every  Whig  Senator  but 
one  voted  for  it.  But  the  Senators  be 
longing  to  the  Locofoco  or  Democratic 


party  voted  against  it.  The  Senators 
from  New  York  voted  against  it.  Gen 
eral  Cass,  from  the  free  State  of  Mich 
igan,  Mr.  Fairfield,  from  Maine,  Mr. 
Niles,  from  Connecticut,  and  others, 
voted  against  it,  and  the  vote  was  lost. 
That  is,  these  gentlemen,  —  some  of 
them  very  prominent  friends  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  and  ready  to  take  the  field  for 
him,  —  theser  very  gentlemen  voted  not 
to  exclude  territory  that  might  be  ob 
tained  by  conquest.  They  were  willing 
to  bring  in  the  territory,  and  then  have 
a  squabble  and  controversy  whether  it 
should  be  slave  or  free  territory.  I  was 
of  opinion  that  the  true  and  safe  policy 
was,  to  shut  out  the  whole  question  by 
getting  no  territory,  and  thereby  keep 
off  all  controversy.  The  territory  will 
do  us  no  good,  if  free;  it  will  be  an  en 
cumbrance,  if  free.  To  a  great  extent, 
it  will  produce  a  preponderance  in  favor 
of  the  South  in  the  Senate,  even  if  it  be 
free.  Let  us  keep  it  out,  therefore.  But 
no.  We  will  make  the  acquisition,  bring 
in  the  territory,  and  manage  it  after 
wards.  That  was  the  policy. 

Gentlemen,  in  an  important  crisis  in 
English  history,  in  the  reign  of  Charles 
the  Second,  when  the  country  was  threat 
ened  by  the  accession  to  the  throne  of  a 
prince,  then  called  the  Duke  of  York, 
wrho  was  a  bigot  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion,  a  proposition  was  made  to  ex 
clude  him  from  the  crown.  Some  said 
that  was  a  very  rash  measure,  brought 
forward  by  very  rash  men;  that  they 
had  better  admit  him,  and  then  put  lim 
itations  upon  him,  chain  him  down,  re 
strict  him.  When  the  debate  was  going 
on,  a  member  is  reported  to  have  risen 
and  expressed  his  sentiments  by  rather 
a  grotesque  comparison,  but  one  of  con 
siderable  force : — 
"I  hear  a  lion,  in  the  lobby,  roar! 
Say,  Mr.  Speaker,  shall  we  shut  the  door, 
And  keep  him  out;  or  shall  we  let  him  in, 
And  see  if  we  can  get  him  out  again  ?  " 

I  was  for  shutting  the  door  and  keep 
ing  the  lion  out.  Other  more  confident 
spirits,  who  are  of  the  character  of  Van 
Amburgh,  were  for  letting  him  in,  and 
disturbing  all  the  interests  of  the  coun 
try.  When  this  Mexican  treaty  came 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


587 


before  the  Senate,  it  had  certain  clauses 
ceding  New  Mexico  and  California  to 
the  United  States.  A  Southern  gentle 
man,  Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina, 
moved  to  strike  out  those  clauses.  Now 
you  understand,  that  if  a  motion  to 
strike  out  a  clause  of  a  treaty  be  sup 
ported  by  one  third,  it  will  be  struck 
out;  that  is,  two  thirds  of  the  Senate 
must  vote  for  each  clause,  in  order  to 
have  it  retained.  The  vote  on  this  ques 
tion  of  striking  out  stood  38  to  14,  not 
quite  one  third  being  against  the  ces 
sion,  and  so  the  clause  was  retained. 
And  why  were  there  not  one  third?  Just 
because  there  were  four  New  England 
Senators  voting  for  these  new  territo 
ries.  That  is  the  reason. 

I  hope  I  am  as  ardent  an  advocate  for 
peace  as  any  man  living;  but  I  would 
not  be  carried  away  by  the  desire  for 
peace  to  commit  an  act  which  I  believed 
highly  injurious,  likely  to  have  conse 
quences  of  a  permanent  character,  and 
indeed  to  endanger  the  existence  of  the 
government.  Besides,  I  believed  that 
we  could  have  struck  out  the  cessions  of 
territory,  and  had  peace  just  as  soon. 
And  I  would  be  willing  to  go  before  the 
people  and  leave  it  to  them  to  say, 
whether  they  would  carry  on  the  war 
any  longer  for  acquisition  of  territory. 
If  they  would,  then  they  were  the  artifi 
cers  of  their  own  fortunes.  I  was  not 
afraid  of  the  people  on  that  subject.  But 
if  this  course  had  continued  the  war 
somewhat  longer,  I  would  have  preferred 
that  result,  rather  than  that  those  ter 
ritories  lying  on  our  southern  border 
should  come  in  hereafter  as  new  States. 
I  should  speak,  perhaps,  with  more  con 
fidence,  if  some  Whigs  of  the  North  had 
not  voted  for  the  treaty.  My  own  opin 
ion  was  then  clear  and  decisive.  For 
myself  I  thought  the  case  a  perfectly 
plain  one,  and  no  man  has  yet  stated  a 
reason  to  convince  me  to  the  contrary, 

I  voted  to  strike  out  the  articles  of 
cession.  They  would  have  been  struck 
out  if  four  of  the  New  England  Senators 
had  not  voted  against  the  motion.  I 
then  voted  against  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty,  and  that  treaty  would  have 
failed  if  three  New  England  Senators 


had  not  voted  for  it,  and  Whig  Senators 
too.  I  should  do  the  same  thing  again, 
and  with  much  more  resolution.  I  would 
have  run  a  still  greater  risk,  I  would 
have  endured  a  still  greater  shock,  I 
would  have  risked  any  thing,  rather  than 
have  been  a  participator  in  any  measure 
which  should  have  a  tendency  to  annex 
Southern  territory  to  the  States  of  the 
Union.  I  hope  it  will  be  remembered, 
in  all  future  time,  that  on  this  question 
of  the  accession  of  these  new  territories 
of  almost  boundless  extent,  I  voted 
against  them,  and  against  the  treaty 
which  contained  them,  notwithstanding 
all  inducements  to  the  contrary,  and  all 
the  cries,  which  I  thought  hasty  and 
injudicious,  of  "Peace!  Peace  on  any 
terms!"  I  will  add,  that  those  who 
voted  against  the  treaty  were  gentlemen 
from  so  many  parts  of  the  country,  that 
its  rejection  would  have  been  an  act 
rather  of  national  than  of  local  resist 
ance.  There  were  votes  against  it  from 
both  parties,  and  from  all  parties,  the 
South  and  the  West,  the  North  and  the 
East.  What  we  wanted  was  a  few  more 
New  England  votes. 

Gentlemen,  after  I  had  the  honor  of 
receiving  the  invitation  to  meet  my  fel 
low-citizens,  I  found  it  necessary,  in  the 
discharge  of  my  duty,  though  with  great 
inconvenience  to  my  health,  to  be  present 
at  the  closing  scenes  of  the  session.  You 
know  what  there  transpired.  You  know 
the  important  decision  that  was  made  in 
both  houses  of  Congress,  in  regard  to 
Oregon.  The  immediate  question  re 
spected  Oregon,  or  rather  the  bill  re 
spected  Oregon,  but  the  question  more 
particularly  concerned  these  new  terri 
tories.  The  effect  of  the  bill  as  passed 
in  the  Senate  was  to  establish  these  new 
territories  as  slave-holding  States.  The 
House  disagreed.  The  Senate  receded 
from  their  ground,  and  the  bill  passed, 
establishing  Oregon  as  a  free  Territory, 
and  making  no  provision  for  the  newly 
acquired  territories  on  the  South.  My 
vote,  and  the  reasons  I  gave  for  it,  are 
known  to  the  good  people  of  Massachu 
setts,  and  I  have  not  heard  that  they 
have  expressed  any  particular  disappro 
bation  of  them. 


588 


SPEECH  AT  MARSHFIELD. 


But  this  question  is  to  be  resumed  at 
the  first  session  of  the  next  Congress. 
There  is  no  probability  that  it  will  be 
settled  at  the  next  session  of  this  Con 
gress.  But  at  least  at  the  first  session 
of  the  next  Congress  this  question  will 
be  resumed.  It  will  enter  at  this  very 
period  into  all  the  elections  of  the  South. 

And  now  I  venture  to  say,  Gentle 
men,  two  things;  the  first  well  known 
to  you,  that  General  Cass  is  in  favor 
of  what  is  called  the  Compromise  Line, 
and  is  of  opinion  that  the  Wilmot  Pro 
viso,  or  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which 
excludes  slavery  from  territories,  ought 
not  to  be  applied  to  territories  lying 
south  of  36°  30'.  He  announced  this 
before  he  was  nominated,  and  if  he  had 
not  announced  it,  he  would  have  been 
36°  30'  farther  off  from  being  nominated. 
In  the  next  place,  he  will  do  all  he  can 
to  establish  that  compromise  line;  and 
lastly,  which  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  in  my 
conscientious  belief  he  will  establish  it. 

Give  him  the  power  and  the  patronage 
of  the  government,  let  him  exercise  it 
over  certain  portions  of  the  country 
whose  representatives  voted  on  this  occa 
sion  to  put  off  that  question  for  future 
consideration;  let  him  have  the  power 
of  this  government  with  his  attachments, 
with  his  inducements,  and  we  shall  see 
the  result.  I  verily  believe,  that  unless 
there  is  a  renewed  strength,  an  aug 
mented  strength,  of  Whig  votes  in  Con 
gress,  he  will  accomplish  his  purpose. 
He  will  surely  have  the  Senate,  and  with 
the  patronage  of  the  government,  with 
every  interest  which  he  can  bring  to 
bear,  co-operating  with  every  interest 
which  the  South  can  bring  to  bear,  he 
will  establish  the  compromise  line.  We 


cry  safety  before  we  are  out  of  the  woods, 
if  we  feet  that  the  danger  respecting  the 
territories  is  over. 

Gentlemen,  I  came  here  to  confer  with 
you  as  friends  and  countrymen,  to  speak 
my  own  mind  and  hear  yours ;  but  if  we 
all  should  speak,  and  occupy  as  much 
time  as  I  have,  we  should  make  a  late 
meeting.  I  shall  detain  you  no  longer. 
I  have  been  long  in  public  life,  longer, 
far  longer  than  I  shall  remain  there.  I 
have  had  some  participation  for  more 
than  thirty  years  in  the  councils  of  the 
nation.  I  profess  to  feel  a  strong  attach 
ment  to  the  liberty  of  the  United  States, 
to  the  Constitution  and  free  institutions 
of  this  country,  to  the  honor,  and  I  may 
say  the  glory,  of  my  native  land.  I  feel 
every  injury  inflicted  upon  it,  almost  as 
a  personal  injury.  I  blush  for  every 
fault  which  I  think  I  see  committed  in 
its  public  councils,  as  if  they  were  faults 
or  mistakes  of  my  own.  I  know  that, 
at  this  moment,  there  is  no  object  upon 
earth  so  much  attracting  the  gaze  of  the 
intelligent  and  civilized  nations  of  the 
earth  as  this  great  republic.  All  men 
look  at  us,  all  men  examine  our  course, 
all  good  men  are  anxious  for  a  favorable 
result  to  this  great  experiment  of  repub 
lican  liberty.  We  are  on  a  hill  and  can 
not  be  hid.  We  cannot  withdraw  our 
selves  either  from  the  commendation  or 
the  reproaches  of  the  civilized  world. 
They  see  us  as  that  star  of  empire  which 
half  a  century  ago  was  represented  as 
making  its  way  westward.  I  wish  they 
may  see  it  as  a  mild,  placid,  though 
brilliant  orb,  moving  athwart  the  whole 
heavens  to  the  enlightening  and  cheer 
ing  of  mankind;  and  not  as  a  meteor  of 
fire  and  blood,  terrifying  the  nations. 


JEREMIAH    MASON. 


[THE  death  of  the  Hon.  Jeremiah  Mason, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the 
legal  profession  in  the  United  States,  took 
place  at  Boston,  on  the  14th  of  October, 
1848.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Bar  of  the 
County  of  Suffolk,  Mass.,  held  on  the  17th 
instant,  appropriate  resolutions  in  honor  of 
the  deceased,  accompanied  with  a  few  elo 
quent  observations,  were  introduced  by  Mr. 
Choate,  and  unanimously  adopted.  It  was 
voted  by  the  meeting,  that  Mr.  Webster 
should  be  requested  to  present  these  reso 
lutions  to  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  at  its 
next  term  in  Boston. 

In  compliance  with  this  request,  at  the 
opening  of  the  next  term  of  the  court,  on 
the  14th  of  November,  1848,  prayer  having 
been  offered,  Mr.  Webster  rose  and  spoke 
as  follows.] 

MAY  it  please  your  Honors,  —  JERE 
MIAH  MASON,  one  of  the  counsellors  of 
this  court,  departed  this  life  on  the  14th 
of  October,  at  his  residence  in  this  city. 
The  death  of  one  of  its  members,  so 
highly  respected,  so  much  admired  and 
venerated,  could  not  fail  to  produce  a 
striking  impression  upon  the  members 
of  this  bar ;  and  a  meeting  was  imme 
diately  called,  at  which  a  member  of  this 
court,  just  on  the  eve  of  leaving  the 
practice  of  his  profession  for  a  seat  on 
the  bench,1  presided;  and  resolutions 
expressive  of  the  sense  entertained  by 
the  bar  of  the  high  character  of  the  de 
ceased,  and  of  sincere  condolence  with 
those  whom  his  loss  touched  more  nearly, 
were  moved  by  one  of  his  distinguished 
brethren,  and  adopted  with  entire  una 
nimity.  My  brethren  have  appointed 
me  to  the  honorable  duty  of  presenting 
these  resolutions  to  this  court;  and  it  is 
in  discharge  of  that  duty  that  I  rise  to 
address  you,  and  pray  that  the  resolu 
tions  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  may  be 
read  by  the  clerk. 

1  Mr.  Justice  Richard  Fletcher. 


The  clerk  of  the  court  then  read  the 
resolutions,  as  follows  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  members  of  this  bar 
have  heard  with  profound  emotion  of  the 
decease  of  the  Honorable  Jeremiah  Ma 
son,  one  of  the  most  eminent  and  distin 
guished  of  the  great  men  who  have  ever 
adorned  this  profession ;  and,  as  well  in 
discharge  of  a  public  duty,  as  in  obedience 
to  the  dictates  of  our  private  feelings, 
we  think  it  proper  to  mark  this  occasion 
by  some  attempt  to  record  our  estimate 
of  his  pre-eminent  abilities  and  high  char 
acter. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  public  character  and 
services  of  Mr.  Mason  demand  prominent 
commemoration;  that, throughout  his  long 
life,  whether  as  a  private  person  or  in  pub 
lic  place,  he  maintained  a  wide  and  various 
intercourse  with  public  men,  and  cherished 
a  constant  and  deep  interest  in  public 
affairs,  and  by  his  vast  practical  wisdom 
and  sagacity,  the  fruit  of  extraordinary  in 
tellectual  endowments,  matured  thought, 
and  profound  observation,  and  by  the  sound 
ness  of  his  opinions  and  the  comprehensive 
ness  and  elevated  tone  of  his  politics,  he 
exerted  at  all  times  a  great  and  most  salu 
tary  influence  upon  the  sentiments  and  pol 
icy  of  the  community  and  the  country  ;  and 
that,  as  a  Senator  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  during  a  period  of  many 
years,  and  in  a  crisis  of  affairs  which  de 
manded  the  wisdom  of  the  wisest  and  the 
civil  virtues  of  the  best,  he  was  distin 
guished  among  the  most  eminent  men  of 
his  country  for  ability  in  debate,  for  atten 
tion  to  all  the  duties  of  his  great  trust,  for 
moderation,  for  prudence,  for  fidelity  to  the 
obligations  of  that  party  connection  to 
which  he  was  attached,  for  fidelity  still 
more  conspicuous  and  still  more  admirable 
to  the  higher  obligations  of  a  thoughtful 
and  enlarged  patriotism. 

"  Resolved,  That  it  was  the  privilege  of 
Mr.  Mason  to  come  to  the  bar  when  the 
jurisprudence  of  New  England  was  yet  in 


590 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


its  infancy ;  that  he  brought  to  its  cultiva 
tion  great  general  ability,  and  a  practical 
sagacity,  logical  power,  and  patient  re 
search,  —  constituting  altogether  a  legal 
genius,  rarely  if  ever  surpassed ;  that  it  was 
greatly  through  his  influence  that  the  grow 
ing  wants  of  a  prosperous  State  were  met 
and  satisfied  by  a  system  of  common  law 
at  once  flexible  and  certain,  deduced  by  the 
highest  human  wisdom  from  the  actual 
wants  of  the  community,  logically  correct, 
and  practically  useful ;  that  in  the  fact  that 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  now  possesses 
such  a  system  of  law,  whose  gladsome  light 
has  shone  on  other  States,  are  seen  both 
the  product  and  the  monument  of  his  labors, 
less  conspicuous,  but  not  less  real,  than  if 
embodied  in  codes  and  institutes  bearing 
his  name ;  yet  that,  bred  as  he  was  to  the 
common  law,  his  great  powers,  opened  and 
liberalized  by  its  study  and  practice,  en 
abled  him  to  grasp  readily,  and  wield  with 
entire  ease,  those  systems  of  equity,  appli 
cable  to  the  transactions  of  the  land  or  the 
sea,  which,  in  recent  times,  have  so  much 
meliorated  and  improved  the  administra 
tion  of  justice  in  our  country. 

"  Resolved,  That  as  respects  his  practice 
as  a  counsellor  and  advocate  at  this  bar, 
we  would  record  our  sense  of  his  integrity, 
prudence,  fidelity,  depth  of  learning,  knowl 
edge  of  men  and  affairs,  and  great  powers 
of  persuading  kindred  minds  ;  and  we  know 
well,  that,  when  he  died,  there  was  extin 
guished  one  of  the  few  great  lights  of  the 
old  common  law. 

"  Resolved,  That  Mr.  Webster  be  request 
ed  to  present  these  resolutions  to  the  Su 
preme  Judicial  Court,  at  its  next  term,  in 
Boston ;  and  the  District  Attorney  of  the 
United  States  be  requested  to  present  them 
to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States 
now  in  session. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  communi 
cate  to  the  family  of  Mr.  Mason  a  copy  of 
these  resolutions,  together  with  the  respect 
ful  sympathy  of  the  bar." 

The  proprieties  of  this  occasion  (con 
tinued  Mr.  Webster)  compel  me,  with 
whatever  reluctance,  to  refrain  from  the 
indulgence  of  the  personal  feelings  which 
arise  in  my  heart,  upon  the  death  of 
one  with  whom  I  have  cultivated  a  sin 
cere,  affectionate,  and  unbroken  friend 
ship,  from  the  day  when  I  commenced 
my  own  professional  career,  to  the  clos 
ing  hour  of  his  life.  I  will  not  say,  of 


the  advantages  which  I  have  derived 
from  his  ^intercourse  and  conversation, 
all  that  Mr.  Fox  said  of  Edmund  Burke; 
but  I  am  bound  to  say,  that  of  my  own 
professional  discipline  and  attainments, 
whatever  they  may  be,  I  owe  much  to 
that  close  attention  to  the  discharge  of 
my  duties  which  I  was  compelled  to 
pay,  for  nine  successive  years,  from  day 
to  day,  by  Mr.  Mason's  efforts  and  ar 
guments  at  the  same  bar.  Fan  est  ab 
hoste  doceri;  and  I  must  have  been  un 
intelligent,  indeed,  not  to  have  learned 
something  from  the  constant  displays  of 
that  power  which  I  had  so  much  occa 
sion  to  see  and  to  feel. 

It  is  the  more  appropriate  duty  of  the 
present  moment  to  give  some  short  no 
tice  of  his  life,  character,  and  the  quali 
ties  of  his  mind  and  heart,  so  that  he 
may  be  presented  as  an  example  to  those 
who  are  entering  upon  or  pursuing  the 
same  career.  Four  or  five  years  ago, 
Mr.  Mason  drew  up  a  biography  of 
himself,  from  the  earliest  period  of  his 
recollection  to  the  time  of  his  removal 
to  Portsmouth,  in  1797;  which  is  inter 
esting,  not  only  for  the  information  it 
gives  of  the  mode  in  which  the  habits  of 
his  life  were  formed,  but  also  for  the 
manner  of  its  composition. 

He  was  born  on  the  27th  day  of  April, 
1768,  at  Lebanon  in  Connecticut.  His 
remotest  ancestor  in  this  country  was 
Captain  John  Mason  (an  officer  who 
had  served  with  distinction  in  the  Neth 
erlands,  under  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax), 
who  came  from  England  in  1630,  and 
settled  at  Dorchester  in  the  Colony  of 
Massachusetts.  His  great-grandfather 
lived  at  Haddam.  His  grandfather, 
born  in  1705,  lived  at  Norwich,  and 
died  in  the  year  1779.  Mr.  Mason 
remembered  him,  and  recollected  his 
character,  as  that  of  a  respectable  and 
deeply  religious  man.  His  ancestor  on 
the  maternal  side  was  James  Fitch,  a 
learned  divine,  who  came  from  England 
and  settled  in  Saybrook,  but  removed 
to  Lebanon,  where  he  died.  A  Latin 
epitaph,  in  the  ancient  burying-ground 
of  that  town,  records  his  merits.  One 
of  his  descendants  held  a  large  tract  of 
land  in  the  parish  of  Goshen,  in  the 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


591 


town  of  Lebanon,  by  grant  from  the 
Indians;  one  half  of  which,  near  a  cen 
tury  afterwards,  was  bequeathed  to  his 
daughter,  Elizabeth  Fitch,  the  mother 
of  Mr.  Mason.  To  this  property  Mr. 
Mason's  father  removed  soon  after  his 
marriage,  and  there  he  died,  in  1813. 
The  title  of  this  land  was  obtained  from 
Uncas,  an  Indian  sachem  in  that  neigh 
borhood,  by  the  great-grandfather  of 
Mr.  Mason's  mother,  and  has  never 
been  alienated  from  the  family.  It  is 
now  owned  by  Mr.  Mason's  nephew, 
Jeremiah  Mason,  the  son  of  his  eldest 
brother  James.  The  family  has  been 
distinguished  for  longevity;  the  average 
ages  of  Mr.  Mason's  six  immediate 
ancestors  having  exceeded  eighty-three 
years  each.  Mr.  Mason  was  the  sixth 
of  nine  children,  all  of  whom  are  now 
dead. 

Mr.  Mason's  father  was  a  man  of  in 
telligence  and  activity,  of  considerable 
opulence,  and  highly  esteemed  by  the 
community.  At  the  commencement  of 
the  Revolutionary  war,  being  a  zealous 
Whig,  he  raised  and  commanded  a  com 
pany  of  minute-men,  as  they  were  called, 
and  marched  to  the  siege  of  Boston. 
Here  he  rendered  important  service, 
being  stationed  at  Dorchester  Heights, 
and  engaged  in  fortifying  that  position. 
In  the  autumn  of  that  year,  he  was  pro 
moted  to  a  colonelcy,  and  joined  the 
army  with  his  regiment,  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  New  York.  At  the  end  of 
the  campaign,  he  returned  home  out  of 
health,  but  retained  the  command  of  his 
regiment,  which  he  rallied  and  brought 
out  with  celerity  and  spirit  when  Gen 
eral  Arnold  assaulted  and  burned  New 
London.  He  became  attached  to  mili 
tary  life,  and  regretted  that  he  had  not 
at  an  early  day  entered  the  Continental 
service.  Colonel  Mason  was  a  good 
man,  affectionate  to  his  family,  kind 
and  obliging  to  his  neighbors,  and  faith 
ful  in  the  observance  of  all  moral  and 
religious  duties. 

Mr.  Mason's  mother  was  distinguished 
for  a  good  understanding,  much  discre 
tion,  the  purity  of  her  heart  and  affec 
tions,  and  the  exemplary  kindness  and 
benevolence  of  her  life.  It  was  her 


great  anxiety  to  give  all  her  children 
the  best  education,  within  the  means  of 
the  family,  which  the  state  of  the  coun 
try  would  allow;  and  she  was  particu 
larly  desirous  that  Jeremiah  should  be 
sent  to  college.  "  In  my  recollection  of 
my  mother,"  says  Mr.  Mason,  "she 
was  the  personification  of  love,  kind 
ness,  and  benevolence." 

Destined  for  an  education  and  for 
professional  life,  Mr.  Mason  was  sent 
to  Yale  College,  at  sixteen  years  of  age; 
his  preparatory  studies  having  been  pur 
sued  under  "  Master  Tisdale,"  who  had 
then  been  forty  years  at  the  head  of  a 
school  in  Lebanon,  which  had  become 
distinguished,  and  among  the  scholars 
of  which  were  the  Wheelocks,  after 
wards  Presidents  of  Dartmouth  College. 
He  was  graduated  in  1784,  and  per 
formed  a  part  in  the  Commencement 
exercises,  which  greatly  raised  the  ex 
pectation  of  his  friends,  and  gratified 
and  animated  his  love  for  distinction. 
"  In  the  course  of  a  long  and  active 
life,"  says  he,  "  I  recollect  no  occasion 
when  I  have  experienced  such  elevation 
of  feeling."  This  \vas  the  effect  of  that 
spirit  of  emulation  which  incited  the 
whole  course  of  his  life  of  usefulness. 
There  is  now  prevalent  among  us  a 
morbid  and  sickly  notion,  that  emu 
lation,  even  as  honorable  rivalry,  is  a 
debasing  passion,  and  not  to  be  encour 
aged.  It  supposes  that  the  mind  should 
be  left  without  such  excitement,  in  a 
dreamy  and  undisturbed  state,  flowing 
or  not  flowing,  according  to  its  own  im 
pulse,  without  such  aids  as  are  furnished 
by  the  rivalry  of  one  with  another.  For 
one,  I  do  not  believe  in  this.  I  hold  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  old  school,  as  to  this 
part  of  education.  Quinctilian  says: 
"  Sunt  quidam,  nisi  institeris,  remissi; 
quidam  imperio  indignantur;  quosdam 
continet  metus,  quosdam  debilitat:  alios 
continuatio  extundit,  in  aliis  plus  im 
petus  facit.  Mihi  ille  detur  puer,  quern 
laus  excitet,  quern  gloria  juvet,  qui 
victus  fleat;  hie  erit  alendus  ambitu, 
hunc  mordebit  objurgatio,  hunc  honor 
excitabit;  in  hoc  desidiam  nunquam 
verebor."  I  think  this  is  sound  sense 
and  just  feeling. 


592 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


Mr.  Mason  was  destined  for  the  law, 
and  commenced  the  study  of  that  pro 
fession  with  Mr.  Baldwin,  a  gentleman 
who  has  lived  to  perform  important 
public  and  private  duties,  has  served 
his  country  in  Congress,  and  on  the 
bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Connect 
icut,  and  still  lives  to  hear  the  account 
of  the  peaceful  death  of  his  distinguished 
pupil.  After  a  year,  he  went  to  Ver 
mont,  in  whose  recently  established  tri 
bunals  he  expected  to  find  a  new  sphere 
for  the  gratification  of  ambition,  and 
the  employment  of  talents.  He  studied 
in  the  office  of  Stephen  Howe  Bradley, 
afterwards  a  Senator  in  Congress;  and 
was  admitted  to  the  bar,  in  Ver 
mont  and  New  Hampshire,  in  the  year 
1791. 

He  began  his  career  in  Westmoreland, 
a  few  miles  below  Walpole,  at  the  age 
of  twenty-three;  but  in  1794,  three  years 
afterwards,  removed  to  Walpole,  as  be 
ing  a  larger  village,  where  there  was 
more  society  and  more  business.  There 
was  at  that  time  on  the  Connecticut 
River  a  rather  unusual  number  of  gen 
tlemen,  distinguished  for  polite  accom 
plishments  and  correct  tastes  in  litera 
ture,  and  among  them  some  well  known 
to  the  public  as  respectable  writers  and 
authors.  Among  these  were  Mr.  Ben 
jamin  West,  Mr.  Dennie,  Mr.  Royall 
Tyler,  Mr.  Jacobs,  Mr.  Samuel  Hunt, 
Mr.  J.  W.  Blake,  Mr.  Colman  (who  es 
tablished,  and  for  a  long  time  edited, 
the  "New  York  Evening  Post"),  and 
Mr.  Olcott.  In  the  association  with 
these  gentlemen,  and  those  like  them, 
Mr.  Mason  found  an  agreeable  position, 
and  cultivated  tastes  and  habits  of  the 
highest  character. 

About  this  period,  he  made  a  journey 
to  Virginia,  on  some  business  connected 
with  land  titles,  where  he  had  much 
intercourse  with  Major-General  Henry 
Lee;  and,  on  his  return,  he  saw  Presi 
dent  Washington,  at  Philadelphia,  and 
was  greatly  struck  by  the  urbanity  and 
dignity  of  his  manner.  He  heard  Fisher 
Ames  make  his  celebrated  speech  upon 
the  British  treaty.  All  that  the  world 
has  said  with  regard  to  the  extraordi 
nary  effect  produced  by  that  speech, 


and  its  wonderful  excellence,  is  fully 
confirmed  by  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Mason. 
He  speaks  of  it  as  one  of  the  highest 
exhibitions  of  popular  oratory  that  he 
had  ever  witnessed ;  popular,  not  in  any 
low  sense,  but  popular  as  being  addressed 
to  a  popular  body,  and  high  in  all  the 
qualities  of  sound  reasoning  and  enlight 
ened  eloquence. 

Mr.  Mason  was  inclined  to  exercise 
his  abilities  in  a  larger  sphere.  He  had 
at  this  time  made  the  acquaintance  of 
Aaron  Burr  and  Alexander  Hamilton. 
The  former  advised  Mr.  Mason  to  re 
move  himself  to  New  York.  His  own 
preference  was  for  Boston;  but  he 
thought,  that,  filled  as  it  then  was 
by  distinguished  professional  ability,  it 
was  too  crowded  to  allow  him  a  place. 
That  was  a  mistake.  On  the  contrary, 
the  bar  of  this  city,  with  the  utmost 
liberality  and  generosity  of  feeling  and 
sentiment,  have  always  been  ready  to 
receive,  with  open  arms,  every  honor 
able  acquisition  to  the  dignity  and  use 
fulness  of  the  profession,  from  other 
States.  Mr.  Mason,  however,  removed 
to  Portsmouth  in  the  autumn  of  1797 ; 
and,  as  was  to  be  expected,  his  prac 
tice  soon  became  extensive.  He  was 
appointed  Attorney- General  in  1802. 
About  that  time,  the  late  learned  and 
lamented  Chief  Justice  Smith  retired 
from  his  professional  duties,  to  take  his 
place  as  a  judge;  and  Mr.  Mason  be 
came  the  acknowledged  head  of  his  pro 
fession.  He  resigned  the  office  of 
Attorney-General,  three  or  four  years 
afterwards,  to  the  great  regret  of  the 
court,  the  bar,  and  the  country.  As  a 
prosecuting  officer,  he  was  courteous, 
inflexible,  and  just;  careful  that  the 
guilty  should  not  escape,  and  that  the 
honest  should  be  protected.  He  was 
impartial,  almost  judicial,  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  his  great  office.  He  had 
no  morbid  eagerness  for  conviction ;  and 
never  permitted,  as  sometimes  occurs, 
an  unworthy  wrangling  between  the  of 
ficial  power  prosecuting,  and  the  zeal  of 
the  other  party  defending.  His  official 
course  produced  exactly  the  ends  it  was 
designed  to  do.  The  honest  felt  safe; 
but  there  was  a  trembling  and  fear  in 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


593 


the  evil  disposed,  that  the  transgressed 
law  would  be  vindicated. 

Very  much  confined  to  his  profession, 
he  never  sought  office  or  political  eleva 
tion.  Yet  he  held  decided  opinions 
upon  all  political  questions,  and  culti 
vated  acquaintance  with  all  the  leading 
subjects  of  the  day;  and  no  man  was 
more  keenly  alive  than  he  to  whatever 
occurred,  at  home  or  abroad,  involv 
ing  the  great  interests  of  the  civilized 
world. 

His  political  principles,  opinions, 
judgments,  were  framed  upon  those  of 
the  men  of  the  times  of  Washington. 
From  these,  to  the  last,  he  never 
swerved.  The  copy  was  well  executed. 
His  conversation  on  subjects  of  state 
was  as  instructive  and  interesting  as 
upon  professional  topics.  He  had  the 
same  reach  of  thought,  and  exhibited 
the  same  comprehensive  mind,  and  sa 
gacity  quick  and  far  seeing,  with  regard 
to  political  things  and  men,  as  he  did 
in  professional  affairs.  His  influence 
•was,  therefore,  hardly  the  less  from  the 
fact  that  he  was  not  actively  engaged  in 
political  life.  There  was  an  additional 
weight  given  to  his  judgment,  arising 
from  his  being  a  disinterested  beholder 
only.  The  looker-on  can  sometimes 
form  a  more  independent  and  impartial 
opinion  of  the  course  and  results  of  the 
contest,  than  those  who  are  actually 
engaged  in  it. 

But  at  length,  in  June,  1813,  he  was 
persuaded  to  accept  the  post  of  a  Sena 
tor  of  the  United  States,  and  took  his 
seat  that  month.  He  was  in  Congress 
during  the  sessions  of  1813  and  1814. 
Those  were  very  exciting  times;  party 
spirit  ran  very  high,  and  each  party  put 
forward  its  most  prominent  and  gifted 
men.  Both  houses  were  filled  by  the 
greatest  intellects  of  the  country.  Mr. 
Mason  found  himself  by  the  side  of 
Rufus  King,  Giles,  Goldsborough,  Gore, 
Barbour,  Daggett,  Hunter,  and  other 
distinguished  public  men.  Among  men 
of  whatever  party,  and  however  much 
some  of  them  differed  from  him  in  opin 
ion  or  political  principle,  there  was  not 
one  of  them  all  but  felt  pleasure  if  he 
spoke,  and  respected  his  uncommon 


ability  and  probity,  and  his  fair  and  up 
right  demeanor  in  his  place  and  station. 
He  took  at  once  his  appropriate  posi 
tion.  Of  his  associates  and  admirers 
in  the  other  house,  there  are  some  emi 
nent  persons  now  living  who  were  occa 
sional  listeners  to  his  speeches  and 
much  struck  with  his  ability;  together 
with  Pickering,  Benson,  Pitkin,  Stock 
ton,  Lowndes,  Gaston,  and  Hopkinson, 
now  all  deceased,  who  used  to  flock  to 
hear  him,  and  always  derived  deep 
gratification  and  instruction  from  his 
talents,  character,  and  power. 

He  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate  in 
1817.  His  published  speeches  are  not 
numerous.  The  reports  of  that  day 
were  far  less  complete  than  now,  and 
comparatively  few  debates  were  pre 
served  and  revised.  It  was  a  remark 
able  truth,  that  he  always  thought  far 
too  lightly  of  himself  and  all  his  pro 
ductions.  I  know  that  he  was  with 
difficulty  persuaded  to  prepare  his 
speeches  in  Congress  for  publication; 
and  in  this  memorial  of  himself  which 
I  have  before  me  he  says,  with  every 
appearance  and  feeling  of  sincerity, 
that  he  ' '  has  never  acted  any  important 
part  in  life,  but  has  felt  a  deep  interest 
in  the  conduct  of  others." 

His  two  main  speeches  were,  first,  one 
of  great  vigor,  in  the  Senate,  in  Febru 
ary,  1814,  on  the  Embargo,  just  before 
that  policy  was  abandoned.  The  other 
was  later,  in  December,  1815,  shortly 
before  the  peace,  on  Mr.  Giles's  Con 
scription  Bill,  in  which  he  discussed  the 
subject  of  the  enlistment  of  minors ;  and 
the  clause  authorizing  such  enlistment 
was  struck  out  upon  his  motion. 

He  was  afterwards  for  several  years  a 
member  of  the  New  Hampshire  Legisla 
ture,  and  assisted  in  revising  the  code  of 
that  State.  He  paid  much  attention  to 
the  subject  of  the  judicature,  and  per 
formed  his  services  fully  to  the  satisfac 
tion  of  the  State ;  and  the  result  of  his 
labors  was  warmly  commended.  In 
1824  he  was  again  a  candidate  for  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  elec 
tion  was  to  be  made  by  the  concurrent 
vote  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Legisla 
ture.  In  the  popular  branch  he  was 


594 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


chosen  by  a  strong  vote.  The  Senate, 
however,  non-concurred;  by  which  means 
the  election  was  lost,  —  a  loss  to  the  coun 
try,  not  to  him,  —  by  force  of  circum 
stances  and  agencies  not  now  or  ever  fit 
to  be  recalled  or  remembered. 

He  continued  to  reside  for  many  years 
in  Portsmouth.  His  residence  in  that 
ancient  town  was  a  happy  one.  He  was 
happy  in  his  family  and  in  the  society  of 
the  town,  surrounded  by  agreeable  neigh 
bors,  respected  by  the  bar  and  the  court, 
and  standing  at  the  head  of  his  profes 
sion.  He  had  a  great  love  of  conver 
sation.  He  took  pleasure  in  hearing 
others  talk,  and  gave  an  additional 
charm  by  the  freshness,  agreeableness, 
and  originality  of  his  own  observations. 
His  warm  hospitality  left  him  never 
alone,  and  his  usefulness  was  felt  as 
much  within  the  walls  of  the  homes,  as 
of  the  tribunals,  of  Portsmouth.  There 
are  yet  many  in  that  town  who  love  him 
and  his;  many  who  witnessed,  as  chil 
dren,  and  recollect,  the  enthusiasm  with 
which  he  was  greeted  by  their  fathers 
and  mothers;  and  all  in  New  Hampshire 
old  enough  to  remember  him  will  feel 
what  we  feel  here  on  this  occasion. 

Led  at  last  partly  by  the  desire  of  ex 
erting  his  abilities  in  a  larger  sphere  of 
usefulness,  and  partly  by  the  fact  of  the 
residence  here  of  beloved  domestic  con 
nections,  he  came  to  this  city,  and  en 
tered  upon  the  performance  of  his  pro 
fessional  duties  in  1832.  Of  the  manner 
in  which  he  discharged  those  duties,  this 
court  is  the  most  competent  judge.  You, 
Mr.  Chief  Justice,  and  the  venerable  as 
sociate  who  usually  occupies  a  place  at 
your  right,1  have  been  witnesses  of  the 
whole.  You  know  the  fidelity  with 
which  he  observed  his  duty  to  the  court, 
as  well  as  his  duty  to  his  clients.  In 
learning,  assiduity,  respect  for  the  bench, 
uprightness,  and  integrity,  he  stood  as  an 
example  to  the  bar.  You  know  the  gen 
eral  probity  and  talent  with  which  he 
performed,  for  so  many  years,  the  duty 
of  a  counsellor  of  this  court. 

I  should  hardly  trust  myself  to  make 
any  analysis  of  Mr.  Mason's  mind.  I 
may  be  a  partial  judge.  But  I  may 
i  Mr.  Justice  Wilde. 


speak  of  what  I  myself  admire  and 
venerate^  The  characteristics  of  Mr. 
Mason's  mind,  as  I  think,  were  real 
greatness,  strength,  and  sagacity.  He 
was  great  through  strong  sense  and  sound 
judgment,  great  by  comprehensive  views 
of  things,  great  by  high  and  elevated 
purposes.  Perhaps  sometimes  he  was 
too  cautious  and  refined,  and  his  dis 
tinctions  became  too  minute;  but  his 
discrimination  arose  from  a  force  of 
intellect,  and  quick-seeing,  far-reaching 
sagacity,  everywhere  discerning  his  ob 
ject  and  pursuing  it  steadily.  Whether 
it  was  popular  or  professional,  he  grasped 
a  point  and  held  it  with  a  strong  hand. 
He  was  sarcastic  sometimes,  but  not  fre 
quently ;  not  frothy  or  petulant,  but  cool 
and  vitriolic.  Unfortunate  for  him  on 
whom  his  sarcasm  fell ! 

His  conversation  was  as  remarkable  as 
his  efforts  at  the  bar.  It  was  original, 
fresh,  and  suggestive;  never  dull  or  iii- 
different.  He  never  talked  when  he  had 
nothing  to  say.  He  was  particularly 
agreeable,  edifying,  and  instructive  to 
all  about  him;  and  this  was  the  charm 
of  the  social  intercourse  in  which  he  was 
connected. 

As  a  professional  man,  Mr.  Mason's 
great  ability  lay  in  the  department  of 
the  common  law.  In  this  part  of  juris 
prudence  he  was  profoundly  learned. 
He  had  drunk  copiously  from  its  deepest 
springs;  and  he  had  studied  with  dili 
gence  and  success  the  departures  from 
the  English  common  law  which  had 
taken  place  in  this  country,  either  neces 
sarily,  from  difference  of  condition,  or 
positively,  by  force  of  our  own  statutes. 
In  his  addresses,  both  to  courts  and 
juries,  he  affected  to  despise  all  elo 
quence,  and  certainly  disdained  all  or 
nament;  but  his  efforts,  whether  ad 
dressed  to  one  tribunal  or  the  other, 
were  marked  by  a  degree  of  clearness, 
directness,  and  force  not  easy  to  be 
equalled.  There  were  no  courts  of 
equity,  as  a  separate  arid  distinct  juris 
diction,  in  New  Hampshire,  during  his 
residence  in  that  State.  Yet  the  equity 
treatises  and  equity  reports  were  all  in 
his  library,  not  "wisely  ranged  for 
show,"  but  for  constant  and  daily  con- 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


595 


saltation ;  because  he  saw  that  the  com 
mon  law  itself  was  growing  every  day 
more  and  more  liberal ;  that  equity  prin 
ciples  were  constantly  forcing  themselves 
into  its  administration  and  within  its 
rules;  that  the  subjects  of  litigation  in 
the  courts  were  constantly  becoming, 
more  and  more,  such  as  escaped  from  the 
technicalities  and  the  trammels  of  the 
common  law,  and  offered  themselves  for 
discussion  and  decision  on  the  broader 
principles  of  general  jurisprudence.  Mr. 
Mason,  like  other  accomplished  lawyers, 
and  more  than  most,  admired  the  search 
ing  scrutiny  and  the  high  morality  of  a 
court  of  equity;  and  felt  the  instruction 
and  edification  resulting  from  the  peru 
sal  of  the  judgments  of  Lord  Hardwicke, 
Lord  Eldon,  and  Sir  William  Grant,  as 
well  as  of  those  of  great  names  in  our 
own  country,  not  now  among  the  living. 

Among  his  early  associates  in  New 
Hampshire,  there  were  many  distin 
guished  men.  Of  those  now  dead  wrere 
Mr.  West,  Mr.  Gordon,  Edward  St.  Loe 
Livermore,  Peleg  Sprague,  William  K. 
Atkinson,  George  Sullivan,  Thomas  W. 
Thompson,  and  Amos  Kent;  the  last  of 
these  having  been  always  a  particular 
personal  friend.  All  of  these  gentlemen 
in  their  day  held  high  and  respectable 
stations,  and  were  eminent  as  lawyers 
of  probity  and  character. 

Another  contemporary  and  friend  of 
Mr.  Mason  was  Mr.  Timothy  Bigelow,  a 
lawyer  of  reputation,  a  man  of  probity 
and  honor,  attractive  by  his  conversa 
tion,  and  highly  agreeable  in  his  social 
intercourse.  Mr.  Bigelow,  we  all  know, 
was  of  this  State,  in  which  he  filled  high 
offices  with  great  credit;  but,  as  a  coun 
sellor  and  advocate,  he  was  constant  in 
his  attendance  on  the  New  Hampshire 
courts.  Having  known  Mr.  Bigelow  from 
my  early  youth,  I  have  pleasure  in  recall 
ing  the  mutual  regard  and  friendship 
which  I  know  to  have  subsisted  between 
him  and  the  subject  of  these  remarks. 
I  ought  not  to  omit  Mr.  Wilson  and  Mr. 
Betton,  in  mentioning  Mr.  Mason's  con 
temporaries  at  the  bar.  They  were  near 
his  own  age,  and  both  well  known  as 
lawyers  and  public  men. 

Mr.  Mason,  while  yet  in  New  Hamp 


shire,  found  himself  engaged  in  causes 
in  which  that  illustrious  man,  Samuel 
Dexter,  also  appeared.  The  late  Mr. 
Justice  Story  wras  still  more  frequently 
at  the  bar  of  that  State ;  and,  at  a  period 
somewhat  earlier,  your  great  and  distin 
guished  predecessor,  Chief  Justice  Par 
sons,  occasionally  presented  himself  be 
fore  the  courts  at  Portsmouth  or  Exeter, 
and  he  is  known  to  have  entertained  a 
very  high  regard,  personal  and  profes 
sional,  as  well  for  Mr.  Mason  as  for  the 
late  Chief  Justice  Smith. 

Among  those  still  living,  with  whom 
Mr.  Mason  was  on  terms  of  intimacy, 
and  with  whom  he  associated  at  the  bar, 
were  Messrs.  Plumer,  Arthur  Livermore, 
Samuel  Bell,  and  Charles  H.  Atherton. 
If  these  respected  men  could  be  here  to 
day,  every  one  of  them  would  unite  with 
us  in  our  tribute  of  love  and  veneration 
to  his  memory. 

But,  Sir,  political  eminence  and  pro 
fessional  fame  fade  away  and  die  with 
all  things  earthly.  Nothing  of  character 
is  really  permanent  but  virtue  and  per 
sonal  worth.  These  remain.  Whatever 
of  excellence  is  wrought  into  the  soul 
itself  belongs  to  both  wrorlds.  Real 
goodness  does  not  attach  itself  merely 
to  this  life;  it  points  to  another  world. 
Political  or  professional  reputation  can 
not  last  for  ever ;  but  a  conscience  void 
of  offence  before  God  and  man  is  an  in 
heritance  for  eternity.  Religion,  there 
fore,  is  a  necessary  and  indispensable 
element  in  any  great  human  character. 
There  is  no  living  without  it.  Religion 
is  the  tie  that  connects  man  with  his 
Creator,  and  holds  him  to  his  throne. 
If  that  tie  be  all  sundered,  all  broken, 
he  floats  away,  a  worthless  atom  in  the 
universe;  its  proper  attractions  all  gone, 
its  destiny  thwarted,  and  its  whole  fu 
ture  nothing  but  darkness,  desolation, 
and  death.  A  man  with  no  sense  of 
religious  duty  is  he  whom  the  Scriptures 
describe,  in  such  terse  but  terrific  lan 
guage,  as  living  "without  God  in  the 
world."  Such  a  man  is  out  of  his  proper 
being,  out  of  the  circle  of  all  his  duties, 
out  of  the  circle  of  all  his  happiness,  and 
away,  far,  far  away,  from  the  purposes 
of  his  creation. 


596 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


A  mind  like  Mr.  Mason's,  active, 
thoughtful,  penetrating,  sedate,  could 
not  but  meditate  deeply  on  the  condi 
tion  of  man  below,  and  feel  its  respon 
sibilities.  He  could  not  look  on  this 
mighty  system, 

"This  universal  frame,  thus  wondrous  fair," 

without  feeling  that  it  was  created  and 
upheld  by  an  Intelligence,  to  wrhich  all 
other  intelligences  must  be  responsible. 
I  am  bound  to  say,  that  in  the  course  of 
my  life  I  never  met  with  an  individual, 
in  any  profession  or  condition  of  life, 
who  always  spoke,  and  always  thought, 
with  such  awful  reverence  of  the  power 
and  presence  of  God.  No  irreverence, 
no  lightness,  even  no  too  familiar  allu 
sion  to  God  and  his  attributes,  ever 
escaped  his  lips.  The  very  notion  of  a 
Supreme  Being  was,  with  him,  made  up 
of  awe  and  solemnity.  It  filled  the  whole 
of  his  great  mind  with  the  strongest 
emotions.  A  man  like  him,  with  all  his 
proper  sentiments  and  sensibilities  alive 
in  him,  must,  in  this  state  of  existence, 
have  something  to  believe  and  some 
thing  to  hope  for;  or  else,  as  life  is  ad 
vancing  to  its  close  and  parting,  all  is 
heart-sinking  and  oppression.  Depend 
upon  it,  whatever  may  be  the  mind  of 
an  old  man,  old  age  is  only  really  happy, 
when,  on  feeling  the  enjoyments  of  this 
world  pass  away,  it  begins  to  lay  a 
stronger  hold  on  those  of  another. 

Mr.  Mason's  religious  sentiments  and 
feelings  were  the  crowning  glories  of  his 
character.  One,  with  the  strongest  mo 
tives  to  love  and  venerate  him,  and  the 
best  means  of  knowledge,  says:  — 

"  So  far  as  my  memory  extends,  he  always 
showed  a  deep  conviction  of  the  divine  au 
thority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  of  the  in 
stitutions  of  Christianity,  and  of  the  im 
portance  of  personal  religion.  Soon  after 
his  residence  in  Boston,  he  entered  the  com 
munion  of  the  Church,  and  has  continued 
since  regularly  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper. 
From  that  time,  he  also  habitually  main 
tained  domestic  worship,  morning  and  even 
ing.  The  death  of  two  of  his  sons  produced 
a  deep  impression  upon  his  mind,  and  di 
rected  it  in  an  increased  degree  to  religious 
subjects. 

"  Though  he  was  always  reserved  in  the 


expression  of  religious  feeling,  still  it  has 
been  very  apparent,  for  several  years,  that 
his  thoughts  dwelt  much  upon  his  practical 
religious  duties,  and  especially  upon  prep 
aration  for  another  world.  Within  three  or 
four  years,  he  frequently  led  the  conversa 
tion  to  such  subjects ;  and  during  the  year 
past,  immediate  preparation  for  his  depart 
ure  has  been  obviously  the  constant  sub 
ject  of  his  attention.  His  expressions  in 
regard  to  it  were  deeply  humble ;  and,  in 
deed,  the  very  humble  manner  in  which  he 
always  spoke  of  himself  was  most  marked. 

"I  have  observed,  of  late  years,  an  in 
creasing  tenderness  in  his  feelings  and  man 
ner,  and  a  desire  to  impress  his  family  with 
the  conviction  that  he  would  not  remain 
long  with  them.  His  allusions  of  this  kind 
have  been  repeated,  even  when  apparently 
in  his  usual  health  ;  and  they  indicated  the 
current  of  his  thoughts. 

"  He  retained  his  consciousness  till  within 
a  few  hours  of  his  death,  and  made  distinct 
replies  to  every  question  put  to  him.  He 
was  fully  aware  that  his  end  was  near ;  and 
in  answer  to  the  question,  'Can  you  now 
rest  with  firm  faith  upon  the  merits  of  your 
Divine  Redeemer  ? '  he  said,  '  I  trust  I  do  : 
upon  what  else  can  I  rest "? ' 

"  At  another  time,  in  reply  to  a  similar 
question,  he  said,  '  Of  course,  I  have  no 
other  ground  of  hope.'  We  did  not  often 
speak  to  him  during  those  last  three  days, 
but  had  no  doubt  that  he  was  entirely  con 
scious  of  his  state,  knew  that  his  family 
were  all  near,  and  that  his  mind  was  free 
from  anxiety.  He  could  not  speak  with 
ease,  and  we  were  unwilling  to  cause  him  the 
pain  of  exertion.  His  whole  life,  marked 
by  uniform  greatness,  wisdom,  arid  integ 
rity,  his  deep  humility,  his  profound  rev 
erence  for  the  Divine  Majesty,  his  habitual 
preparation  for  death,  his  humble  trust  in 
his  Saviour,  left  nothing  to  be  desired  for 
the  consolation  of  his  family  under  this 
great  loss.  He  was  gradually  prepared  for 
his  departure.  His  last  years  were  passed 
in  calm  retirement ;  and  lie  died  as  he 
wished  to  die,  with  his  faculties  unimpaired, 
without  great  pain,  with  his  family  around 
his  bed,  the  precious  promises  of  the  Gospel 
before  his  mind,  without  lingering  disease, 
and  yet  not  suddenly  called  away." 

Such,  Mr.  Chief  Justice,  was  the 
life,  and  such  the  death,  of  JEREMIAH 
MASON.  For  one,  I  could  pour  out  my 
heart  like  water,  at  the  recollection  of 
his  virtues  and  his  friendship,  and  in  the 


JEREMIAH  MASON. 


597 


feeling  of  his  loss.  I  would  embalm  his 
memory  in  my  best  affections.  His  per 
sonal  regard,  so  long  continued  to  me,  I 
esteem  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  of 
my  life;  and  I  hope  that  it  may  be 
known  hereafter,  that,  without  inter 
mission  or  coolness  through  many  years, 
and  until  he  descended  to  his  grave,  Mr. 
Mason  and  myself  were  friends. 

Mr.  Mason  died  in  old  age ;  not  by  a 
violent  stroke  from  the  hand  of  death, 
not  by  a  sudden  rupture  of  the  'ties  of 
nature,  but  by  a  gradual  wearing  out  of 
his  constitution.  He  enjoyed  through 
life,  indeed,  remarkable  health.  He 
took  competent  exercise,  loved  the  open 
air,  and,  avoiding  all  extreme  theories 
or  practice,  controlled  his  conduct  and 
habits  of  life  by  the  rules  of  prudence 


and  moderation.  His  death  was  there 
fore  not  unlike  that  described  by  the 
angel,  admonishing  Adam:  — 

"  I  yield  it  just,  said  Adam,  and  submit. 
But  is  there  yet  no  other  way,  besides 
These  painful  passages,  how  we  may  come 
To  death,  and  mix  with  our  connatural  dust  ? 

There  is,  said  Michael,  if  thou  well  observe 
The  rule  of  'Not  too  much,'  by  temperance 

taught, 
In  what  thou  eat'st  and  drink'st;    seeking 

from  thence 

Due  nourishment,  not  gluttonous  delight ; 
Till  many  years  over  thy  head  return, 
So  mayst  thou  live;  till,  like  ripe  fruit,  thou 

drop 

Into  thy  mother's  lap ;  or  be  with  ease 
Gathered,   not  harshly   plucked;   for    death 

mature. 
This  is  old  age." 


KOSSUTH. 

FROM  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  BOSTON,  ON  THE  TTH  OF  NOVEMBER,  1849, 
AT  A  FESTIVAL  OF  THE  NATIVES  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE  ESTABLISHED  IN 
MASSACHUSETTS. 


WE  have  all  had  our  sympathies  much 
enlisted  in  the  Hungarian  effort  for  lib 
erty.  We  have  all  wept  at  its  fail 
ure.  We  thought  we  saw  a  more  ra 
tional  hope  of  establishing  free  gov 
ernment  in  Hungary  than  in  any  other 
part  of  Europe,  where  the  question 
has  been  in  agitation  within  the  last 
twelve  months.  But  despotic  power 
from  abroad  intervened  to  suppress  that 
hope. 

And,  Gentlemen,  what  will  come  of 
it  I  do  not  know.  For  my  part,  at  this 
moment,  I  feel  more  indignant  at  recent 
events  connected  with  Hungary  than  at 
all  those  which  passed  in  her  struggle  for 
liberty.  I  see  that  the  Emperor  of  Rus 
sia  demands  of  Turkey  that  the  noble 
Kossuth  and  his  companions  shall  be 
given  up,  to  be  dealt  with  at  his  pleas 
ure.  And  I  see  that  this  demand  is 
made  in  derision  of  the  established  law 
of  nations.  Gentlemen,  there  is  some 
thing  on  earth  greater  than  arbitrary  or 
despotic  power.  The  lightning  has  its 
power,  and  the  whirlwind  has  its  power, 
and  the  earthquake  has  its  power;  but 
there  is  something  among  men  more 
capable  of  shaking  despotic  thrones 
than  lightning,  whirlwind,  or  earth 
quake,  and  that  is,  the  excited  and 
aroused  indignation  of  the  whole  civil 
ized  world.  Gentlemen,  the  Emperor 
of  Russia  holds  himself  to  be  bound  by 
the  law  of  nations,  from  the  fact  that 
he  negotiates  with  civilized  nations,  and 
that  he  forms  alliances  and  treaties  with 


them.  He  professes,  in  fact,  to  live  in 
a  civilized  age,  and  to  govern  an  en 
lightened  nation.  I  say,  that  if,  under 
these  circumstances,  he  shall  perpetrate 
so  great  a  violation  of  national  law  as 
to  seize  these  Hungarians  and  to  exe 
cute  them,  he  will  stand  as  a  criminal 
and  malefactor  in  the  view  of  the  pub 
lic  law  of  the  world.  The  whole  world 
will  be  the  tribunal  to  try  him,  and  he 
must  appear  before  it,  and  hold  up  his 
hand,  and  plead,  and  abide  its  judg 
ment. 

The  Emperor  of  Russia  is  the  su 
preme  lawgiver  in  his  own  country, 
and,  for  aught  I  know,  the  executor  of 
that  law  also.  But,  thanks  be  to  God, 
he  is  not  the  supreme  lawgiver  or  exec 
utor  of  national  law,  and  every  offence 
against  that  is  an  offence  against  the 
rights  of  the  civilized  world.  If  he 
breaks  that  law  in  the  case  of  Turkey, 
or  any  other  case,  the  whole  world  has  a 
right  to  call  him  out,  and  to  demand  his 
punishment. 

Our  rights  as  a  nation,  like  those  of 
other  nations,  are  held  under  the  sanc 
tion  of  national  law;  a  law  which  be 
comes  more  important  from  day  to  day; 
a  law  which  none,  who  profess  to  agree 
to  it,  are  at  liberty  to  violate.  Nor  let 
him  imagine,  nor  let  any  one  imagine, 
that  mere  force  can  subdue  the  general 
sentiment  of  mankind.  It  is  much 
more  likely  to  diffuse  that  sentiment, 
and  to  destroy  the  power  which  he  most 
desires  to  establish  and  secure. 


KOSSUTH. 


599 


Gentlemen,  the  bones  of  poor  John 
Wickliffe  were  dug  out  of  his  grave, 
seventy  years  after  his  death,  and  burnt 
for  his  heresy;  and  his  ashes  were 
thrown  upon  a  river  in  Warwickshire. 
Some  prophet  of  that  day  said: 

"  The  Avon  to  the  Severn  runs, 

The  Severn  to  the  sea, 
And  Wickliffe' s  dust  shall  spread  abroad, 
Wide  as  the  waters  be." 

Gentlemen,  if  the  blood  of  Kossuth 
is  taken  by  an  absolute,  unqualified, 
unjustifiable  violation  of  national  law, 
what  will  it  appease,  what  will  it  pacify? 
It  will  mingle  with  the  earth,  it  will  mix 
with  the  waters  of  the  ocean,  the  whole 
civilized  world  will  snuff  it  in  the  air, 
and  it  will  return  with  awful  retribution 
on  the  heads  of  those  violators  of  na 


tional  law  and  universal  justice.  I  can 
not  say  when,  or  in  what  form;  but 
depend  upon  it,  that,  if  such  an  act  take 
place,  then  thrones,  and  principalities, 
and  powers,  must  look  out  for  the  con 
sequences. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  let  us  do  our 
part ;  let  us  understand  the  position  in 
which  we  stand,  as  the  great  republic  of 
the  wroiid,  at  the  most  interesting  era 
of  its  history.  Let  us  consider  the  mis 
sion  and  the  destiny  which  Providence 
seems  to  have  designed  for  us,  and  let 
us  so  take  care  of  our  own  conduct,  that, 
with  irreproachable  hearts,  and  with 
hands  void  of  offence,  we  may  stand  up 
whenever  and  wherever  called  upon, 
and,  with  a  voice  not  to  be  disregarded, 
say,  This  shall  not  be  done,  at  least  not 
without  our  protest. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE    SENATE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,   ON   THE 

?TH  OF  MARCH,  1850. 


[Ox  the  25th  of  January,  1850,  Mr.  Clay 
submitted  a  series  of  resolutions  to  the  Sen 
ate,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  in  connec 
tion  with  the  various  questions  which  had 
arisen  in  consequence  of  the  acquisition  of 
Mexican  territory.  These  resolutions  fur 
nished  the  occasion  of  a  protracted  debate. 
On  Wednesday,  the  6th  of  March,  Mr. 
Walker  of  Wisconsin  engaged  in  the  dis 
cussion,  but,  owing  to  the  length  of  time 
taken  up  by  repeated  interruptions,  he  was 
unable  to  finish  his  argument.  In  the  mean 
time  it  had  been  generally  understood  that 
Mr.  Webster  would,  at  an  early  day,  take 
an  opportunity  of  addressing  the  Senate  on 
the  present  aspect  of  the  slavery  question, 
on  the  dangers  to  the  Union  of  the  existing 
agitation,  and  on  the  terms  of  honorable 
adjustment.  In  the  expectation  of  hearing 
a  speech  from  him  on  these  all-important 
topics,  an  immense  audience  assembled  in 
the  Senate-Chamber  at  an  early  hour  of 
Thursday,  the  7th  of  March.  The  floor,  the 
galleries,  and  the  antechambers  of  the  Sen 
ate  were  crowded,  and  it  was  with  difficulty 
that  the  members  themselves  were  able  to 
force  their  way  to  their  seats. 

At  twelve  o'clock  the  special  order  of  the 
day  was  announced,  and  the  Vice-President 
stated  that  Mr.  Walker  of  Wisconsin  was 
entitled  to  the  floor.  That  gentleman,  how 
ever,  rose  and  said  :  — 

"Mr.  President,  this  vast  audience  has  not 
come  together  to  hear  me,  and  there  is  but  one 
man,  in  my  opinion,  who  can  assemble  such  an 
audience.  They  expect  to  hear  him,  and  I  feel 
it  to  be  my  duty,  therefore,  as  it  is  mv  pleasure, 
to  give  the  floor  to  the  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts.  I  understand  it  is  immaterial  to  him  upon 
which  of  these  questions  he  speaks,  and  there 
fore  I  will  not  move  to  postpone  the  special 
order." 

Mr.  Webster  then  rose,  and,  after  making 
his  acknowledgments  to  the  Senators  from 
Wisconsin  (Mr.  Walker)  and  New  York 
(Mr.  Seward)  for  their  courtesy  in  yielding 
the  floor  to  him,  delivered  the  following 
speech,  which,  in  consideration  of  its  char 


acter  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  re 
ceived  throughout  the  country,  has  been 
entitled  a  speech  for  "  the  Constitution  and 
the  Union."  In  the  pamphlet  edition  it  was 
dedicated  in  the  following  terms  to  the  peo 
ple  of  Massachusetts :  — 

WITH   THE   HIGHEST   RESPECT, 

AND   THE   DEEPEST    SENSE    OF    OBLIGATION, 

I    DEDICATE    THIS    SPEECH 

TO  THE 

PEOPLE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

"HIS    EGO    GRATIORA   DICTU    ALIA    E86E  SCIO;    8ED 

ME  VERA  PRO  GRATIS  LOQCI,  ETSI  MEUM  INGE- 

NIUM  NON  MONERET,  NECESSITAS  COGIT.  VfiLLEM, 
EQUIDEM,  VOBI8  1'LACERE;  8ED  MULTO  MALO  VO8 
SALVOS  ESSE,  QUALICUMQUE  ERGA  ME  ANIMO  FL'TLRI 
E8T1S." 

DANIEL   WEBSTER.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — I  wish  to  speak 
to-day,  not  as  a  Massachusetts  man,  nor 
as  a  Northern  man,  but  as  an  American, 
and  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  fortunate  that  there 
is  a  Senate  of  the  United  States ;  a  body 
not  yet  moved  from  its  propriety,  not 
lost  to  a  just  sense  of  its  own  dignity 
and  its  own  high  responsibilities,  and  a 
body  to  which  the  country  looks,  with 
confidence,  for  wise,  moderate,  patri 
otic,  and  healing  counsels.  It  is  not  to 
be  denied  that  we  live  in  the  midst  of 
strong  agitations,  and  are  surrounded 
by  very  considerable  dangers  to  our  in 
stitutions  and  government.  The  impris 
oned  winds  are  let  loose.  The  East,  the 
North,  and  the  stormy  South  combine 
to  throw  the  whole  sea  into  commotion, 
to  toss  its  billows  to  the  skies,  and  dis 
close  its  profoundest  depths.  I  do  not 
affect  to  regard  myself,  Mr.  President, 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH  OF  MARCH,   1850. 


601 


as  holding,  or  as  fit  to  hold,  the  helm  in 
this  combat  with  the  political  elements ; 
but  I  have  a  duty  to  perform,  and  I 
mean  to  perform  it  with  fidelity,  not 
without  a  sense  of  existing  dangers,  but 
not  without  hope.  I  have  a  part  to  act, 
not  for  my  own  security  or  safety,  for  I 
am  looking  out  for  no  fragment  upon 
which  to  float  away  from  the  wreck,  if 
wreck  there  must  be,  but  for  the  good 
of  the  whole,  and  the  preservation  of 
all;  and  there  is  that  which  will  keep 
me  to  my  duty  during  this  struggle, 
whether  the  sun  and  the  stars  shall  ap 
pear,  or  shall  not  appear,  for  many  days. 
I  speak  to-day  for  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  u  Hear  me  for  my  cause." 
Tspeak  to-day,  but  of  a  solicitous  and 
anxious  heart,  for  the  restoration  to  the 
country  of  that  quiet  and  that  harmony 
which  make  the  blessings  of  this  Union 
so  rich,  and  so  dear  to  us  all.  These 
are  the  topics  that  I  propose  to  myself 
to  discuss;  these  are  the  motives,  and 
the  sole  motives,  that  influence  me  in 
the  wish  to  communicate  my  opinions 
to  the  Senate  and  the  country;  arid  if  I 
can  do  any  thing,  however  little,  for  the 
promotion  of  these  ends,  I  shall  have 
accomplished  all  that  I  expect. 

Mr.  President,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
recur  very  briefly  to  the  events  which, 
equally  sudden  and  extraordinary,  have 
brought  the  country  into  its  present 
political  condition.  In  May,  1846,  the 
United  States  declared  war  against  Mex 
ico.  Our  armies,  then  on  the  frontiers, 
entered  the  provinces  of  that  republic, 
met  and  defeated  all  her  troops,  pene 
trated  her  mountain  passes,  and  occu 
pied  her  capital.  The  marine  force  of 
the  United  States  took  possession  of  her 
forts  and  her  towns,  on  the  Atlantic  and 
on  the  Pacific.  In  less  than  two  years 
a  treaty  was  negotiated,  by  which  Mex 
ico  ceded  to  the  United  States  a  vast 
territory,  extending  seven  or  eight  hun 
dred  miles  along  the  shores  of  the  Pa 
cific,  and  reaching  back  over  the  moun 
tains,  and  across  the  desert,  until  it 
joins  the  frontier  of  the  State  of  Texas. 
It  so  happened,  in  the  distracted  and 
feeble  condition  of  the  Mexican  govern 
ment,  that,  before  the  declaration  of  war 


by  the  United  States  against  Mexico  had 
become  known  in  California,  the  people 
of  California,  under  the  lead  of  Amer 
ican  officers,  overthrew  the  existing  Mex 
ican  provincial  government,  and  raised 
an  independent  flag.  When  the  news 
arrived  at  San  Francisco  that  war  had 
been  declared  by  the  United  States 
against  Mexico,  this  independent  flag 
was  pulled  down,  and  the  stars  and 
stripes  of  this  Union  hoisted  in  its  stead. 
So,  Sir,  before  the  war  was  over,  the 
forces  of  the  United  States,  military  and 
naval,  had  possession  of  San  Francisco 
and  Upper  California,  and  a  great  rush 
of  emigrants  from  various  parts  of  the 
world  took  place  into  California  in  1846 
and  1847.  But  now  behold  another 
wonder. 

In  January  of  1848,  a  party  of  Mor 
mons  made  a  discovery  of  an  extraordi 
narily  rich  mine  of  gold,  or  rather  of  a 
great  quantity  of  gold,  hardly  proper  to 
be  called  a  mine,  for  it  was  spread  near 
the  surface,  on  the  lower  part  of  the 
south,  or  American,  branch  of  the  Sac 
ramento.  They  attempted  to  conceal 
their  discovery  for  some  time ;  but  soon 
another  discovery  of  gold,  perhaps  of 
greater  importance,  was  made,  on  an 
other  part  of  the  American  branch  of 
the  Sacramento,  and  near  Slitter's  Fort, 
as  it  is  called.  The  fame  of  these  dis 
coveries  spread  far  and  wide.  They  in 
flamed  more  and  more  the  spirit  of  emi 
gration  towards  California,  which  had 
already  been  excited  ;  and  adventurers 
crowded  into  the  country  by  hundreds, 
and  flocked  towards  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco.  This,  as  I  have  said,  took 
place  in  thfc  winter  and  spring  of  1848. 
The  digging  commenced  in  the  spring 
of  that  year,  and  from  that  time  to  this 
the  work  of  searching  for  gold  has  been 
prosecuted  with  a  success  not  heretofore 
knowTn  in  the  history  of  this  globe.  You 
recollect,  Sir,  how  incredulous  at  first 
the  American  public  was  at  the  accounts 
which  reached  us  of  these  discoveries  ; 
but  we  all  know,  now,  that  these  ac 
counts  received,  and  continue  to  receive, 
daily  confirmation,  and  down  to  the 
present  moment  I  suppose  the  assurance 
is  as  strong,  after  the  experience  of  these 


602 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH   OF  MARCH,   1850, 


several  months,  of  the  existence  of  de 
posits  of  gold  apparently  inexhaustible 
in  the  regions  near  San  Francisco,  in 
California,  as  it  was  at  any  period  of  the 
earlier  dates  of  the  accounts. 

It  so  happened,  Sir,  that  although, 
after  the  return  of  peace,  it  became  a 
very  important  subject  for  legislative 
consideration  and  legislative  decision  to 
provide  a  proper  territorial  government 
for  California,  yet  ^differences  of  opin 
ion  between  the  two  houses  of  Congress 
prevented  the  establishment  of  any 
such  territorial  government  at  the  last 
session.  Under  this  state  of  things, 
the  inhabitants  of  California,  already 
amounting  to  a  considerable  number, 
thought  it  to  be  their  duty,  in  the 
summer  of  last  year,  to  establish  a  local 
government.  Under  the  proclamation 
of  General  Riley,  the  people  chose  dele 
gates  to  a  convention,  and  that  conven 
tion  met  at  Monterey.  It  formed  a 
constitution  for  the  State  of  California, 
which,  being  referred  to  the  people,  was 
adopted  by  them  in  their  primary 
assemblages.  Desirous  of  immediate 
connection  with  the  United  States,  its 
Senators  were  appointed  and  Represent 
atives  chosen,  who  have  come  hither, 
bringing  with  them  the  authentic  con 
stitution  of  the  State  of  California;  and 
they  now  present  themselves,  asking, 
in  behalf  of  their  constituents,  that  it 
may  be  admitted  into  this  Union  as  one 
of  the  United  States.  This  constitu 
tion,  Sir,  contains  an  express  prohibi 
tion  of  slavery,  or  involuntary  servitude, 
in  the  State  of  California.  It  is  said, 
and  I  suppose  truly,  that,  of  the  mem 
bers  who  composed  that  convention, 
some  sixteen  were  natives  of,  and  had 
been  residents  in,  the  slave-holding 
States,  about  twenty-two  were  from  the 
non-slaveholding  States,  and  the  remain 
ing  ten  members  were  either  native  Cal 
if  ornians  or  old  settlers  in  that  country. 
This  prohibition  of  slavery,  it  is  said, 
was  inserted  with  entire  unanimity. 

It  is  this  circumstance,  Sir,  the  pro 
hibition  of  slavery,  which  has  con 
tributed  to  raise,  I  do  not  say  it  has 
wholly  raised,  the  dispute  as  to  the  pro 
priety  of  the  admission  of  California 


into  the  Union  under  this  constitution. 
It  is  not  .to  be  denied,  Mr.  President, 
nobody  thinks  of  denying,  that,  what 
ever  reasons  were  assigned  at  the  com 
mencement  of  the  late  war  with  Mexico, 
it  was  prosecuted  for  the  purpose  of  the 
acquisition  of  territory,  and  under  the 
alleged  argument  that  the  cession  of 
territory  was  the  only  form  in  which 
proper  compensation  could  be  obtained 
by  the  United  States,  from  Mexico,  for 
the  various  claims  and  demands  which 
the  people  of  this  country  had  against 
that  government.  At  any  rate,  it  will 
be  found  that  President  Polk's  message, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  session  of 
December,  1847,  avowed  that  the  war 
was  to  be  prosecuted  until  some  acqui 
sition  of  territory  should  be  made.  As 
the  acquisition  was  to  be  south  of  the 
line  of  the  United  States,  in  warm  cli 
mates  and  countries,  it  was  naturally, 
I  suppose,  expected  by  the  South,  that 
whatever  acquisitions  were  made  in  that 
region  would  be  added  to  the  slave- 
holding  portion  of  the  United  States. 
Very  little  of  accurate  information  was 
possessed  of  the  real  physical  character, 
either  of  California  or  New  Mexico,  and 
events  have  not  turned  out  as  was  ex 
pected.  iBoth  California  and  New 
Mexjco  are  likely  to  come  in  as  free 
States;  and  therefore  some  degree  of 
disappointment  arid  surprise  has  re 
sulted.  In  other  words,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  question  which  has  so  long 
harassed  the  country,  and  at  some  times 
very  seriously  alarmed  the  minds  of 
wise  and  good  men,  has  come  upon  us 
for  a  fresh  discussion, — the  question 
of  slavery  in  these  United  States. 

Now,  Sir,  I  propose,  perhaps  at  the 
expense  of  some  detail  and  consequent 
detention  of  the  Senate,  to  review  his 
torically  this  question,  which,  partly  in 
consequence  of  its  own  importance,  and 
partly,  perhaps  mostly,  in  consequence 
of  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  dis 
cussed  in  different  portions  of  the  coun 
try,  has  been  a  source  of  so  much  aliena 
tion  and  unkind  feeling  between  them. 

We  all  know,  Sir,  that  slavery  has 
existed  in  the  world  from  time  immemo 
rial.  There  was  slavery,  in  the  earliest 


FOR  THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


603 


, 


periods  of  history,  among  the  Oriental 
nations.  There  was  slavery  among  the 
Jews ;  the  theocratic  government  of  that 
people  issued  no  injunction  against  it. 
There  was  slavery  among  the  Greeks; 
and  the  ingenious  philosophy  of  the 
Greeks  found,  or  sought  to  find,  a  justi 
fication  for  it  exactly  upon  the  grounds 
which  have  been  assumed  for  such  a 
justification  in  this  country;  that  is,  a 
natural  and  original  difference  among 
the  races  of  mankind,  and  the  inferiority 
of  the  black  or  colored  race  to  the  white. 
The  Greeks  justified  their  system  of 
slavery  upon  that  idea,  precisely.  They 
held  the  African  and  some  of  the  Asiatic 
tribes  to  be  inferior  to  the  white  race; 
but  they  did  not  show,  I  think,  by  any 
close  process  of  logic,  that,  if  this  were 
true,  the  more  intelligent  and  the  stronger 
had  therefore  a  right  to  subjugate  the 
weaker. 

The  more  manly  philosophy  and  juris 
prudence  of  the  Romans  placed  the  jus 
tification  of  slavery  on  entirely  different 
grounds.  The  Roman  jurists,  from  the 
first  and  down  to  the  fall  of  the  empire, 
admitted  that  slavery  was  against  the 
natural  law,  by  which,  as  they  main 
tained,  all  men,  of  whatsoever  clime, 
color,  or  capacity,  were  equal;  but  they 
justified  slavery,  first,  upon  the  ground 
and  authority  of  the  law  of  nations, 
arguing,  and  arguing  truly,  that  at  that 
day  the  conventional  law  of  nations  ad 
mitted  that  captives  in  war,  whose  lives, 
according  to  the  notions  of  the  times, 
were  at  the  absolute  disposal  of  the 
captors,  might,  in  exchange  for  exemp 
tion  from  death,  be  made  slaves  for  life, 
and  that  such  servitude  might  descend 
to  their  posterity.  The  jurists  of  Rome 
also  maintained,  that,  by  the  civil  law, 
there  might  be  servitude  or  slavery, 
personal  and  hereditary;  first,  by  the 
voluntary  act  of  an  individual,  who 
might  sell  himself  into  slavery;  secondly, 
by  his  being  reduced  into  a  state  of 
slavery  by  his  creditors,  in  satisfaction 
of  his  debts;  and,  thirdly,  by  being 
placed  in  a  state  of  servitude  or  slavery 
for  crime.  At  the  introduction  of  Chris 
tianity,  the  Roman  world  was  full  of 
slaves,  and  I  suppose  there  is  to  be  found 


no  injunction  against  that  relation  be 
tween  man  and  man  in  the  teachings  of 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  or  of  any  of 
his  Apostles.  The  object  of  the  instruc 
tion  imparted  to  mankind  by  the  Founder 
of  Christianity  was  to  touch  the  heart, 
purify  the  soul,  and  improve  the  lives 
of  individual  men.  That  object  went 
directly  to  the  first  fountain  of  all  the 
political  and  social  relations  of  the  hu 
man  race,  as  well  as  of  all  true  religious 
feeling,  the  individual  heart  and  mind 
of  man. 

Now,  Sir,  upon  the  general  nature  and 
influence  of  slavery  there  exists  a  wide 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  north 
ern  portion  of  this  country  and  the 
southern.  It  is  said  on  the  one  side, 
that,  although  not  the  subject  of  any 
injunction  or  direct  prohibition  in  the 
New  Testament,  slavery  is  a  wrong; 
that  it  is  founded  merely  in  the  right  of 
the  strongest;  and  that  it  is  an  oppres 
sion,  like  unjust  wars,  like  all  those  con 
flicts  by  which  a  powerful  nation  subjects 
a  weaker  to  its  will;  and  that,  in  its 
nature,  whatever  may  be  said  of  it  in 
the  modifications  which  have  taken 
place,  it  is  not  according  to  the  meek 
spirit  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  not  ' '  kindly 
affectioned  "  ;  it  does  not  "seek  an 
other's,  and  not  its  own";  it  does  not 
"  let  the  oppressed  go  free."  These  are 
sentiments  that  are  cherished,  and  of  late 
with  greatly  augmented  force,  among  the 
people  of  the  Northern  States.  They 
have  taken  hold  of  the  religious  senti 
ment  of  that  part  of  the  country,  as  they 
have,  more  or  less,  taken  hold  of  the  re 
ligious  feelings  of  a  considerable  portion 
of  mankind.  The  South,  upon  the  other 
side,  having  been  accustomed  to  this  re 
lation  between  the  two  races  all  their 
lives,  from  their  birth,  having  been 
taught,  in  general,  to  treat  the  subjects 
of  this  bondage  with  care  and  kindness, 
and  I  believe,  in  general,  feeling  great 
kindness  for  them,  have  not  taken  the 
view  of  the  subject  which  I  have  men 
tioned.  There  are  thousands  of  relig 
ious  men,  with  consciences  as  tender  as 
any  of  their  brethren  at  the  North,  who 
do  not  see  the  unlawfulness  of  slavery; 
and  there  are  more  thousands,  perhaps, 


604 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH  OF  MARCH,   1850, 


that,  whatsoever  they  may  think  of  it  in 
its  origin,  and  as  a  matter  depending 
upon  natural  right,  yet  take  things  as 
they  are,  and,  finding  slavery  to  be  an 
established  relation  of  the  society  in 
which  they  live,  can  see  no  way  in 
which,  let  their  opinions  on  the  abstract 
question  be  what  they  may,  it  is  in  the 
power  of  the  present  generation  to  relieve 
themselves  from  this  relation.  And 
candor  obliges  me  to  say,  that  I  believe 
they  are  just  as  conscientious,  many  of 
them,  and  the  religious  people,  all  of 
them,  as  they  are  at  the  North  who 
hold  different  opinions. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina l  the  other  day  alluded  to  the 
separation  of  that  great  religious  com 
munity,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
That  separation  was  brought  about  by 
differences  of  opinion  upon  this  particu 
lar  subject  of  slavery.  I  felt  great  con 
cern,  as  that  dispute  went  on,  about  the 
result.  I  was  in  hopes  that  the  differ 
ence  of  opinion  might  be  adjusted,  be 
cause  I  looked  upon  that  religious  de 
nomination  as  one  of  the  great  props 
of  religion  and  morals  throughout  the 
whole  country,  from  Maine  to  Georgia, 
and  westward  to  our  utmost  western 
boundary.  The  result  was  against  my 
wishes  and  against  my  hopes.  I  have 
read  all  their  proceedings  and  all  their 
arguments;  but  I  have  never  yet  been 
able  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
was  any  real  ground  for  that  separation ; 
in  other  words,  that  any  good  could  be 
produced  by  that  separation.  I  must 
say  I  think  there  was  some  want  of 
candor  and  charity.  Sir,  when  a  ques 
tion  of  this  kind  seizes  on  the  religious 
sentiments  of  mankind,  and  comes  to  be 
discussed  in  religious  assemblies  of  the 
clergy  and  laity,  there  is  always  to  be 
expected,  or  always  to  be  feared,  a  great 
degree  of  excitement.  It  is  in  the 
nature  of  man,  manifested  by  his  whole 
history,  that  religious  disputes  are  apt 
to  become  warm  in  proportion  to  the 
strength  of  the  convictions  which  men 
entertain  of  the  magnitude  of  the  ques 
tions  at  issue.  In  all  such  disputes, 
there  will  sometimes  be  found  men  with 
l  Mr.  Calhoun. 


whom  every  thing  is  absolute ;  absolute 
ly  wrong,  or  absolutely  right.  They  see 
the  right  clearly ;  they  think  others  ought 
so  to  see  it,  and  they  are  disposed  to  es 
tablish  a  broad  line  of  distinction  be 
tween  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong. 
They  are  not  seldom  willing  to  establish 
that  line  upon  their  own  convictions  of 
truth  and  justice ;  and  are  ready  to  mark 
and  guard  it  by  placing  along  it  a  series 
of  dogmas,  as  lines  of  boundary  on  the 
earth's  surface  are  marked  by  posts  and 
stones.  There  are  men  who,  with  clear 
perceptions,  as  they  think,  of  their  own 
duty,  do  not  see  how  too  eager  a  pursuit 
of  one  duty  may  involve  them  in  the 
violation  of  others,  or  how  too  warm  an 
embracement  of  one  truth  may  lead  to 
a  disregard  of  other  truths  equally  im 
portant.  As  I  heard  it  stated  strongly, 
not  many  days  ago,  these  persons  are 
disposed  to  mount  upon  some  particular 
duty,  as  upon  a  war-horse,  and  to  drive 
furiously  on  and  upon  and  over  all  other 
duties  that  may  stand  in  the  way.  There 
are  men  who,  in  reference  to  disputes  of 
that  sort,  are  of  opinion  that  human 
duties  may  be  ascertained  with  the  ex 
actness  of  mathematics.  They  deal 
with  morals  as  with  mathematics ;  and 
they  think  what  is  right  may  be  dis 
tinguished  from  what  is  wrong  with 
the  precision  of  an  algebraic  equation. 
They  have,  therefore,  none  too  much 
charity  towards  others  who  differ  from 
them.  They  are  apt,  too,  to  think  that 
nothing  is  good  but  what  is  perfect,  and 
that  there  are  no  compromises  or  modi 
fications  to  be  made  in  consideration  of 
difference  of  opinion  or  in  deference  to 
other  men's  judgment.  If  their  per 
spicacious  vision  enables  them  to  detect 
a  spot  on  the  face  of  the  sun,  they  think 
that  a  good  reason  why  the  sun  should 
be  struck  down  from  heaven.  They 
prefer  the  chance  of  running  into  utter 
darkness  to  living  in  heavenly  light,  if 
that  heavenly  light  be  not  absolutely 
without  any  imperfection.  There 
impatient  men ;  too  impatient  alwa 
give  heed  to  the  admonition  of  St. 
that  we  are  not  to  "do  evil  that  g< 
may  come";  too  impatient  to  wait  fa 
the  slow  progress  of  moral  causes  in  the 


FOR  THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


605 


improvement  of  mankind.  They  do  not 
remember  that  the  doctrines  and  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  Christ  have,  in  eigh 
teen  hundred  years,  converted  only  a 
small  portion  of  the  human  race;  and 
among  the  nations  that  are  converted  to 
Christianity,  they  forget  how  many  vices 
and  crimes,  public  and  private,  still  pre 
vail,  and  that  many  of  them,  public 
crimes  especially,  which  are  so  clearly 
offences  against  the  Christian  religion, 
pass  without  exciting  particular  indig 
nation.  Thus  wars  are  waged,  and 
unjust  wars.  I  do  not  deny  that  there 
may  be  just  wars.  There  certainly  are; 
but  it  was  the  remark  of  an  eminent 
person,  not  many  years  ago,  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  that  it  is  one 
of  the  greatest  reproaches  to  human 
nature  that  wars  are  sometimes  just. 
The  defence  of  nations  sometimes  causes 
a  just  war  against  the  injustice  of  other 
nations.  In  this  state  of  sentiment 
upon  the  general  nature  of  slavery  lies 
the  cause  of  a  great  part  of  those  un 
happy  divisions,  exasperations,  and  re 
proaches  which  find  vent  and  support  in 
different  parts  of  the  Union. 

But  we  must  view  things  as  they  are. 
Slavery  does  exist  in  the  United  States. 
It  did  exist  in  the  States  before  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  and  at 
that  time.  Let  us,  therefore,  consider 
for  a  moment  what  was  the  state  of  sen 
timent,  North  and  South,  in  regard  to 
slavery,  at  the  time  this  Constitution 
was  adopted.  A  remarkable  change  has 
taken  place  since  ;  but  what  did  the  wise 
and  great  men  of  all  parts  of  the  country 
think  of  slavery  then  ?  In  what  esti 
mation  did  they  hold  it  at  the  time  when 
this  Constitution  was  adopted?  It  will 
be  found,  Sir,  if  we  will  carry  ourselves 
by  historical  research  back  to  that  day, 
and  ascertain  men's  opinions  by  authen 
tic  records  still  existing  among  us,  that 
there  was  then  no  diversity  of  opinion 
between  the  North  and  the  South  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery.  It  will  be  found 
that  both  parts  of  the  country  held  it 
equally  an  evil, — a  moral  and  political 
evil.  It  will  not  be  found  that,  either 
at  the  North  or  at  the  South,  there  was 
much,  though  there  was  some,  invective 


against  slavery  as  inhuman  and  cruel. 
The  great  ground  of  objection  to  it  was 
political;  that  it  weakened  the  social 
fabric;  that,  taking  the  place  of  free 
labor,  society  became  less  strong  and 
labor  less  productive ;  and  therefore  we 
find  from  all  the  eminent  men  of  the 
time  the  clearest  expression  of  their 
opinion  that  slavery  is  an  evil.  They 
ascribed  its  existence  here,  not  without 
truth,  and  not  without  some  acerbity  of 
temper  and  force  of  language,  to  the 
injurious  policy  of  the  mother  country, 
who,  to  favor  the  navigator,  had  entailed 
these  evils  upon  the  Colonies.  I  need 
hardly  refer,  Sir,  particularly  to  the  pub 
lications  of  the  day.  They  are  matters 
of  history  on  the  record.  The  eminent 
men,  the  most  eminent  men,  and  nearly 
all  the  conspicuous  politicians  of  the 
South,  held  the  same  sentiments,  —  that 
slavery  was  an  evil,  a  blight,  a  scourge, 
and  a  curse.  There  are  no  terms  of 
reprobation  of  slavery  so  vehement  in 
the  North  at  that  day  as  in  the  South. 
The  North  was  not  so  much  excited 
against  it  as  the  South ;  and  the  reason 
is,  I  suppose,  that  there  was  much  less 
of  it  at  the  North,  and  the  people  did 
not  see,  or  think  they  saw,  the  evils 
so  prominently  as  they  were  seen,  or 
thought  to  be  seen,  at  the  South. 

Then,  Sir,  when  this  Constitution  was 
framed,  this  was  the  light  in  which  the 
Federal  Convention  viewed  it.  That 
body  reflected  the  judgment  and  senti 
ments  of  the  great  men  of  the  South. 
A  member  of  the  other  house,  whom  I 
have  not  the  honor  to  know,  has,  in  a 
recent  speech,  collected  extracts  from 
these  public  documents.  They  prove 
the  truth  of  what  I  am  saying,  and  the 
question  then  was,  how  to  deal  with  it, 
and  how  to  deal  with  it  as  an  evil. 
They  came  to  this  general  result.  They 
thought  that  slavery  could  not  be  con 
tinued  in  the  country  if  the  importation 
of  slaves  were  made  to  cease,  and  there 
fore  they  provided  that,  after  a  certain 
period,  the  importation  might  be  pre 
vented  by  the  act  of  the  new  govern 
ment.  The  period  of  twenty  years  was 
proposed  by  some  gentleman  from  the 
North,  I  think,  and  many  members  of 


606 


SPEECH   OF   THE   7xn   OF  MARCH,   1850, 


the  Convention  from  the  South  opposed 
it  as  being  too  long.  Mr.  Madison 
especially  was  somewhat  warm  against 
it.  He  said  it  would  bring  too  much  of 
this  mischief  into  the  country  to  allow 
the  importation  of  slaves  for  such  a 
period.  Because  we  must  take  along 
with  us,  in  the  whole  of  this  discussion, 
when  we  are  considering  the  sentiments 
and  opinions  in  which  the  constitutional 
provision  originated,  that  the  conviction 
of  all  men  was,  that,  if  the  importation 
of  slaves  ceased,  the  white  race  would 
multiply  faster  than  the  black  race,  and 
that  slavery  would  therefore  gradually 
wear  out  and  expire.  It  may  not  be 
improper  here  to  allude  to  that,  I  had 
almost  said,  celebrated  opinion  of  Mr. 
Madison.  You  observe,  Sir,  that  the 
term  slave,  or  slavery,  is  not  used  in  the 
Constitution.  The  Constitution  does 
not  require  that  "  fugitive  slaves  "  shall 
be  delivered  up.  It  requires  that  per 
sons  held  to  service  in  one  State,  and 
escaping  into  another,  shall  be  delivered 
up.  Mr.  Madison  opposed  the  intro 
duction  of  the  term  slave,  or  slavery,  into 
the  Constitution ;  for  he  said  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  see  it  recognized  by  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  of  America 
that  there  could  be  property  in  men. 

Now,  Sir,  all  this  took  place  in  the 
Convention  in  1787;  but  connected  with 
this,  concurrent  and  contemporaneous, 
is  another  important  transaction,  not 
sufficiently  attended  to.  The  Conven 
tion  for  framing  this  Constitution  as 
sembled  in  Philadelphia  in  May,  and 
sat  until  September,  1787.  During  all 
that  time  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  was  in  session  at  New  York.  It 
was  a  matter  of  design,  as  we  know, 
that  the  Convention  should  not  assemble 
in  the  same  city  where  Congress  was 
holding  its  sessions.  Almost  all  the 
public  men  of  the  country,  therefore,  of 
distinction  and  eminence,  were  in  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  assemblies;  and  I 
think  it  happened,  in  some  instances, 
that  the  same  gentlemen  were  mem 
bers  of  both  bodies.  If  I  mistake  not, 
such  was  the  case  with  Mr.  Rufus  King, 
then  a  member  of  Congress  from  Massa 
chusetts.  Now,  at  the  very  time  when 


the  Convention  in  Philadelphia  was 
framing  £his  Constitution,  the  Congress 
in  New  York  was  framing  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  for  the  organization  and  govern 
ment  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the 
Ohio.  They  passed  that  Ordinance  on 
the  13th  of  July,  1787,  at  New  York, 
the  very  month,  perhaps  the  very  day, 
on  which  these  questions  about  the  im 
portation  of 'slaves  and  the  character  of 
slavery  were  debated  in  the  Convention 
at  Philadelphia.  So  far  as  we  can  now 
learn,  there  wras  a  perfect  concurrence 
of  opinion  between  these  two  bodies; 
and  it  resulted  in  this  Ordinance  of 
1787,  excluding  slavery  from  all  the  ter 
ritory  over  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had  jurisdiction,  and  that 
was  all  the  territory  northwest  of  the 
Ohio.  Three  years  before,  Virginia  and 
other  States  had  made  a  cession  of  that 
great  territory  to  the  United  States;  and 
a  most  munificent  act  it  was.  I  never 
reflect  upon  it  without  a  disposition  to  do 
honor  and  justice,  and  justice  would  be 
the  highest  honor,  to  Virginia,  for  the 
cession  of  her  northwestern  territory. 
I  will  say,  Sir,  it  is  one  of  her  fairest 
claims  to  the  respect  and  gratitude  of 
the  country,  and  that,  perhaps,  it  is  only 
second  to  that  other  claim  which  belongs 
to  her,  —  that  from  her  counsels,  and 
from  the  intelligence  and  patriotism  of 
her  leading  statesmen,  proceeded  the  first 
idea  put  into  practice  of  the  formation 
of  a  general  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  Ordinance  of  1787  applied 
to  the  whole  territory  over  which  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  had  juris 
diction.  It  was  adopted  two  years  be 
fore  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  went  into  operation ;  because  the 
Ordinance  took  effect  immediately  on 
its  passage,  while  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  having  been  framed, 
was  to  be  sent  to  the  States  to  be 
adopted  by  their  conventions ;  and  then 
a  government  was  to  be  organized  under 
it.  This  Ordinance,  then,  was  in  opera 
tion  and  force  when  the  Constitution 
was  adopted,  and  the  government  put 
in  motion,  in  April,  1789. 

Mr.  President,  three  things  are  quite 
clear  as  historical  truths.     One  is,  that 


FOR   THE  CONSTITUTION  AND   THE  UNION. 


607 


there  was  an  expectation  that,  on  the 
ceasing  of  the  importation  of  slaves 
from  Africa,  slavery  would  begin  to  run 
out  here.  That  was  hoped  and  expected. 
Another  is,  that,  as  far  as  there  was  any 
power  in  Congress  to  prevent  the  spread 
of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  that 
power  was  executed  in  the  most  absolute 
manner,  and  to  the  fullest  extent.  An 
honorable  member,1  whose  health  does 
not  allow  him  to  be  here  to-day  — 

A  SENATOR.     He  is  here. 

I  am  very  happy  to  hear  that  he  is ; 
may  he  long  be  here,  and  in  the  enjoy 
ment  of  health  to  serve  his  country! 
The  honorable  member  said,  the  other 
day,  that  he  considered  this  Ordinance 
as  the  first  in  the  series  of  measures  cal 
culated  to  enfeeble  the  South,  and  de 
prive  them  of  their  just  participation  in 
the  benefits  and  privileges  of  this  gov 
ernment.  He  says,  very  properly,  that 
it  was  enacted  under  the  old  Confedera 
tion,  and  before  this  Constitution  went 
into  effect;  but  my  present  purpose  is 
only  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that  it  was 
established  with  the  entire  and  unani 
mous  concurrence  of  the  whole  South. 
Why,  there  it  stands !  The  vote  of  every 
State  in  the  Union  was  unanimous  in 
favor  of  the  Ordinance,  with  the  excep 
tion  of  a  single  individual  vote,  and  that 
individual  vote  was  given  by  a  Northern 
man.  This  Ordinance  prohibiting  sla 
very  for  ever  northwest  of  the  Ohio  has 
the  hand  and  seal  of  every  Southern 
member  in  Congress.  It  was  therefore 
no  aggression  of  the  North  on  the  South. 
The  other  and  third  clear  historical  truth 
is,  that  the  Convention  meant  to  leave 
slavery  in  the  States  as  they  found  it, 
entirely  under  the  authority  and  control 
of  the  States  themselves. 

This  was  the  state  of  things,  Sir,  and- 
this  the  state  of  opinion,  under  which 
those  very  important  matters  were  ar 
ranged,  and  those  three  important  things 
done;  that  is,  the  establishment  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  with 
a  recognition  of  slavery  as  it  existed  in 
the  States;  the  establishment  of  the 
ordinance  for  the  government  of  the 
i  Mr.  Calhoun. 


Northwestern  Territory,  prohibiting,  to 
the  full  extent  of  all  territory  owned  by 
the  United  States,  the  introduction  of 
slavery  into  that  territory,  while  leaving 
to  the  States  all  power  over  slavery  in 
their  own  limits;  and  creating  a  power, 
in  the  new  government,  to  put  an  end 
to  the  importation  of  slaves,  after  a  lim 
ited  period.  There  was  entire  coinci 
dence  and  concurrence  of  sentiment 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  upon 
all  these  questions,  at  the  period  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  But  opin 
ions,  Sir,  have  changed,  greatly  changed ; 
changed  North  and  changed  South. 
Slavery  is  not  regarded  in  the  South 
now  as  it  was  then.  I  see  an  honorable 
member  of  this  body  paying  me  the 
honor  of  listening  to  my  remarks;1  he 
brings  to  my  mind,  Sir,  freshly  and 
vividly,  what  I  have  learned  of  his  great 
ancestor,  so  much  distinguished  in  his 
day  and  generation,  so  worthy  to  be 
succeeded  by  so  worthy  a  grandson,  and 
of  the  sentiments  he  expressed  in  the 
Convention  in  Philadelphia.2 

Here  we  may  pause.  There  was,  if 
not  an  entire  unanimity,  a  general  con 
currence  of  sentiment  running  through 
the  whole  community,  and  especially  en 
tertained  by  the  eminent  men  of  all 
parts  of  the  country.  But  soon  a  change 
began,  at  the  North  and  the  South,  and 
a  difference  of  opinion  showed  itself;  the 
North  growing  much  more  warm  and 
strong  against  slavery,  and  the  South 
growing  much  more  warm  and  strong  in 
its  support.  Sir,  there  is  no  generation 
of  mankind  whose  opinions  are  not  sub 
ject  to  be  influenced  by  what  appear  to 
them  to  be  their  present  emergent  and 
exigent  interests.  I  impute  to  the  South 
no  particularly  selfish  view  in  the  change 
which  has  come  over  her.  I  impute  to 
her  certainly  no  dishonest  view.  All 
that  has  happened  has  been  natural.  It 
has  followed  those  causes  which  always 
influence  the  human  mind  and  operate 
upon  it.  What,  then,  have  been  the 
causes  which  have  created  so  new  a  feel 
ing  in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  South, 

1  Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia. 

2  See  Madison  Papers,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1390, 
1428,  et  seq. 


608 


SPEECH   OF   THE   TTH   OF  MARCH,   1850, 


which  have  changed  the  whole  nomen 
clature  of  the  South  on  that  subject,  so 
that,  from  being  thought  and  described 
in  the  terms  I  have  mentioned  and  will 
not  repeat,  it  has  now  become  an  insti 
tution,  a  cherished  institution,  in  that 
quarter;  no  evil,  no  scourge,  but  a  great 
religious,  social,  and  moral  blessing,  as  I 
think  I  have  heard  it  latterly  spoken  of? 
I  suppose  this,  Sir,  is  owing  to  the  rapid 
growth  and  sudden  extension  of  the  COT- 
!TON  plantations  of  the  South.  So  far  as 
any  motive  consistent  with  honor,  jus 
tice,  and  general  judgment  could  act,  it 
was  the  COTTON  interest  that  gave  a  new 
desire  to  promote  slavery,  to  spread  it, 
and  to  use  its  labor.  I  again  say  that 
this  change  was  produced  by  causes 
which  must  always  produce  like  effects. 
The  whole  interest  of  the  South  became 
connected,  more  or  less,  with  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery.  If  we  look  back  to  the 
history  of  the  commerce  of  this  country 
in  the  early  years  of  this  government, 
what  were  our  exports?  Cotton  was 
hardly,  or  but  to  a  very  limited  extent, 
known.  In  1791  the  first  parcel  of  cot 
ton  of  the  growth  of  the  United  States 
was  exported,  and  amounted  only  to 
19,200  pounds.1  It  has  gone  on  in 
creasing  rapidly,  until  the  whole  crop 
may  now,  perhaps,  in  a  season  of  great 
product  and  high  prices,  amount  to  a 
hundred  millions  of  dollars.  In  the 
years  I  have  mentioned,  there  was  more 
of  wax,  more  of  indigo,  more  of  rice, 
more  of  almost  every  article  of  export 
from  the  South,  than  of  cotton.  When 
Mr.  Jay  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1794  with 
England,  it  is  evident  from  the  twelfth 
article  of  the  treaty,  which  was  sus 
pended  by  the  Senate,  that  he  did  not 
know  that  cotton  was  exported  at  all 
from  the  United  States. 

Well,  Sir,  we  know  what  followed. 
The  age  of  cotton  became  the  golden 
age  of  our  Southern  brethren.  It  grati 
fied  their  desire  for  improvement  and 
accumulation,  at  the  same  time  that  it 

1  Seybert's  Statistics,  p.  92.  A  small  parcel 
of  cotton  found  its  way  to  Liverpool  from  the 
United  States  in  1784,  and  was  refused  admis 
sion,  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  be  the 
growth  of  the  United  States. 


excited  it.  The  desire  grew  by  what  it 
fed  upon^and  there  soon  came  to  be  an 
eagerness  for  other  territory,  a  new  area 
or  new  areas  for  the  cultivation  of  the  cot 
ton  crop;  and  measures  leading  to  this 
result  were  brought  about  rapidly,  one 
after  another,  under  the  lead  of  Southern 
men  at  the  head  of  the  government, 
they  having  a  majority  in  both  branches 
of  Congress  to  accomplish  their  ends. 
The  honorable  member  from  South  Caro 
lina  l  observed  that  there  has  been  a 
majority  all  along  in  favor  of  the  North. 
If  that  be  true,  Sir,  the  North  has  acted 
either  very  liberally  and  kindly,  or  very 
weakly;  for  they  never  exercised  that 
majority  efficiently  five  times  in  the 
history  of  the  government,  when  a  di 
vision  or  trial  of  strength  arose.  Never. 
Whether  they  were  outgeneralled,  or 
whether  it  was  owing  to  other  causes,  I 
shall  not  stop  to  consider;  but  no  man 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Union 
can  deny  that  the  general  lead  in  the 
politics  of  the  country,  for  three  fourths 
of  the  period  that  has  elapsed  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  has  been  a 
Southern  lead. 

In  1802,  in  pursuit  of  the  idea  of  open 
ing  a  new  cotton  region,  the  United 
States  obtained  a  cession  from  Georgia 
of  the  whole  of  her  western  territory, 
now  embracing  the  rich  and  growing 
States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  In 
1803  Louisiana  was  purchased  from 
France,  out  of  which  the  States  of  Lou 
isiana,  Arkansas,  and  Missouri  have  been 
framed,  as  slave-holding  States.  In  1819 
the  cession  of  Florida  was  made,  bring 
ing  in  another  region  adapted  to  culti 
vation  by  slaves.  Sir,  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  thought 
he  saw  in  certain  operations  of  the  gov 
ernment,  such  as  the  manner  of  collect 
ing  the  revenue,  and  the  tendency  of 
measures  calculated  to  promote  emigra 
tion  into  the  country,  what  accounts  for 
the  more  rapid  growth  of  the  North  than 
the  South.  He  ascribes  that  more  rapid 
growth,  not  to  the  operation  of  time, 
but  to  the  system  of  government  and 
administration  established  under  this 
Constitution.  That  is  matter  of  opin- 
1  Mr.  Calhoun. 


FOR  THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


609 


ion.  To  a  certain  extent  it  may  be 
true ;  but  it  does  seem  to  me  that,  if  any 
operation  of  the  government  can  be 
shown  in  any  degree  to  have  promoted 
the  population,  and  growth,  and  wealth 
of  the  North,  it  is  much  more  sure  that 
there  are  sundry  important  and  distinct 
operations  of  the  government,  about 
which  no  man  can  doubt,  tending  to 
promote,  and  which  absolutely  have  pro 
moted,  the  increase  of  the  slave  interest 
and  the  slave  territory  of  the  South.  It 
was  not  time  that  brought  in  Louisiana; 
,  it  was  the  act  of  men.  It  was  not  time 
that  brought  in  Florida;  it  was  the  act 
of  men.  And  lastly,  Sir,  to  complete 
those  acts  of  legislation  which  have  con 
tributed  so  much  to  enlarge  the  area  of 
the  institution  of  slavery,  Texas,  great 
and  vast  and  illimitable  Texas,  was 
added  to  the  Union  as  a  slave  State  in 
1845;  and  that,  Sir,  pretty  much  closed 
the  whole  chapter,  and  settled  the  whole 
account. 

That  closed  the  whole  chapter  and 
settled  the  whole  account,  because  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  upon  the  condi 
tions  and  under  the  guaranties  upon 
which  she  was  admitted,  did  not  leave 
within  the  control  of  this  government 
an  acre  of  land,  capable  of  being  culti 
vated  by  slave  labor,  between  this  Capi 
tol  and  the  Rio  Grande  or  the  Nueces, 
or  whatever  is  the  proper  boundary  of 
Texas ;  not  an  acre.  From  that  moment, 
the  whole  country,  from  this  place  to  the 
western  boundary  of  Texas,  was  fixed, 
pledged,  fastened,  decided,  to  be  slave 
territory  for  ever,  by  the  solemn  guar 
anties  of  law.  And  I  now  say,  Sir.  as 
the  proposition  upon  which  I  stand  this 
day,  and  upon  the  truth  and  firmness  of 
which  I  intend  to  act  until  it  is  over 
thrown,  that  there  is  not  at  this  moment 
within  the  United  States,  or  any  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States,  a  single  foot 
of  land,  the  character  of  which,  in  re 
gard  to  its  being  free  territory  or  slave 
territory,  is  not  fixed  by  some  law,  and 
some  irrepealable  law,  beyond  the  power 
of  the  action  of  the  government.  Is  it 
not  so  with  respect  to  Texas?  It  is 
most  manifestly  so.  The  honorable  mem 
ber  from  South  Carolina,  at  the  time  of 


the  admission  of  Texas,  held  an  impor 
tant  post  in  the  executive  department  of 
the  government;  he  was  Secretary  of 
State.  Another  eminent  person  of  great 
activity  and  adroitness  in  affairs,  I  mean 
the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,1  was 
a  conspicuous  member  of  this  body,  and 
took  the  lead  in  the  business  of  annexa 
tion,  in  co-operation  with  the  Secretary 
of  State;  and  I  must  say  that  they  did 
their  business  faithfully  and  thoroughly; 
there  was  no  botch  left  in  it.  They 
rounded  it  off,  and  made  as  close  joiner- 
work  as  ever  was  exhibited.  Resolu 
tions  of  annexation  were  brought  into 
Congress,  fitly  joined  together,  compact, 
efficient,  conclusive  upon  the  great  object 
which  they  had  in  view,  and  those  reso 
lutions  passed. 

Allow  me  to  read  a  part  of  these  reso 
lutions.  It  is  the  third  clause  of  the 
second  section  of  the  resolution  of  the 
1st  of  March,  1845,  for  the  admission  of 
Texas,  which  applies  to  this  part  of  the 
case.  That  clause  is  as  follows :  — 

"  New  States,  of  convenient  size,  not  ex 
ceeding  four  in  number,  in  addition  to  said 
State  of  Texas,  and  having  sufficient  popu 
lation,  may  hereafter,  by  the  consent  of 
said  State,  be  formed  out  of  the  territory 
thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled  to  admis 
sion  under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  And  such  States  as  may  be 
formed  out  of  that  portion  of  said  territory 
lying  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty 
minutes  north  latitude,  commonly  known 
as  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  the  people  of  each  State  asking 
admission  may  desire ;  and  in  such  State 
or  States  as  shall  be  formed  out  of  said 
territory  north  of  said  Missouri  Compro 
mise  line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude 
(except  for  crime)  shall  be  prohibited." 

Now  what  is  here  stipulated,  enacted, 
and  secured?  It  is,  that  all  Texas  south 
of  36°  30',  which  is  nearly  the  whole  of 
it,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as 
a  slave  State.  It  was  a  slave  State,  and 
therefore  came  in  as  a  slave  State ;  and 
the  guaranty  is,  that  new  States  shall 
be  made  out  of  it,  to  the  number  of 
four,  in  addition  to  the  State  then  in 

1  Mr.  Walker. 


39 


610 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH   OF  MARCH,   1850, 


existence  and  admitted  at  that  time  by 
these  resolutions,  and  that  such  States 
as  are  formed  out  of  that  portion  of 
Texas  lying  south  of  36°  3(X  may  come 
in  as  slave  States.  I  know  no  form  of 
legislation  which  can  strengthen  this. 
I  know  no  mode  of  recognition  that  can 
add  a  tittle  of  weight  to  it.  I  listened 
respectfully  to  the  resolutions  of  my 
honorable  friend  from  Tennessee.1  He 
proposed  to  recognize  that  stipulation 
with  Texas.  But  any  additional  recog 
nition  would  weaken  the  force  of  it; 
because  it  stands  here  on  the  ground  of 
a  contract,  a  thing  done  for  a  considera 
tion.  It  is  a  law  founded  on  a  contract 
with  Texas,  and  designed  to  carry  that 
contract  into  effect.  A  recognition  now, 
founded  not  on  any  consideration,  or 
any  contract,  would  not  be  so  strong  as 
it  now  stands  on  the  face  of  the  resolu 
tion.  I  know  no  way,  I  candidly  con 
fess,  in  which  this  government,  acting 
in  good  faith,  as  I  trust  it  always  will, 
can  relieve  itself  from  that  stipulation 
and  pledge,  by  any  honest  course  of 
legislation  whatever.  And  therefore  I 
say  again,  that,  so  far  as  Texas  is  con 
cerned,  in  the  whole  of  that  State  south 
of  36°  30',  which,  I  suppose,  embraces 
all  the  territory  capable  of  slave  cultiva 
tion,  there  is  no  land,  not  an  acre,  the 
character  of  which  is  not  established  by 
law;  a  law  which  cannot  be  repealed 
without  the  violation  of  a  contract,  and 
plain  disregard  of  the  public  faith. 

I  hope,  Sir,  it  is  now  apparent  that 
my  proposition,  so  far  as  it  respects 
Texas,  has  been  maintained,  arid  that 
the  provision  in  this  article  is  clear  and 
absolute ;  and  it  has  been  well  suggested 
by  my  friend  from  Rhode  Island,2  that 
that  part  of  Texas  which  lies  north  of 
36°  30'  of  north  latitude,  and  which 
may  be  formed  into  free  States,  is  de 
pendent,  in  like  manner,  upon  the  con 
sent  of  Texas,  herself  a  slave  State. 

Now,  Sir,  how  came  this?  How  came 
it  to  pass  that  within  these  walls,  where 
it  is  said  by  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina  that  the  free  States  have 
always  had  a  majority,  this  resolution 
of  annexation,  such  as  I  have  described 


Mr.  Bell. 


2  Mr.  Greene. 


it,  obtained  a  majority  in  both  houses 
of  Congress?  Sir,  it  obtained  that 
majority  by  the  great  number  of  North 
ern  votes  added  to  the  entire  Southern 
vote,  or  at  least  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  Southern  vote.  The  aggregate  was 
made  up  of  Northern  and  Southern 
votes.  In  the  House  of  Representatives 
there  were  about  eighty  Southern  votes 
and  about  fifty  Northern  votes  for  the 
admission  of  Texas.  In  the  Senate  the 
vote  for  the  admission  of  Texas  was 
twenty-seven,  and  twenty-five  against 
it;  and  of  those  twenty-seven  votes, 
constituting  the  majority,  no  less  than 
thirteen  came  from  the  free  States,  and 
four  of  them  were  from  New  England. 
The  whole  of  these  thirteen  Senators, 
constituting  within  a  fraction,  you  see, 
one  half  of  all  the  votes  in  this  body  for 
the  admission  of  this  immeasurable  ex 
tent  of  slave  territory,  were  sent  here 
by  free  States. 

Sir,  there  is  not  so  remarkable  a 
chapter  in  our  history  of  political  events, 
political  parties,  and  political  men  as  is 
afforded  by  this  admission  of  a  new 
slave-holding  territory,  so  vast  that  a 
bird  cannot  fly  over  it  in  a  week.  New 
England,  as  I  have  said,  with  some  of 
her  own  votes,  supported  this  measure. 
Three  fourths  of  the  votes  of  liberty- 
loving  Connecticut  were  given  for  it  in 
the  other  house,  and  one  half  here. 
There  was  one  vote  for  it  from  Maine, 
but,  I  am  happy  to  say,  not  the  vote  of 
the  honorable  member  who  addressed 
the  Senate  the  day  before  yesterday,1 
and  who  was  then  a  Representative  from 
Maine  in  the  House  of  Representatives; 
but  there  was  one  vote  from  Maine,  ay, 
and  there  was  one  vote  for  it  from  Mas 
sachusetts,  given  by  a  gentleman  then 
representing,  and  now  living  in,  the 
district  in  which  the  prevalence  of  Free 
Soil  sentiment  for  a  couple  of  years  or 
so  has  defeated  the  choice  of  any  mem 
ber  to  represent  it  in  Congress.  Sir, 
that  body  of  Northern  arid  Eastern  men 
who  gave  those  votes  at  that  time  are 
now  seen  taking  upon  themselves,  in 
the  nomenclature  of  politics,  the  ap 
pellation  of  the  Northern  Democracy. 
1  Mr.  Hamlin. 


FOR   THE   CONSTITUTION   AND   THE   UNION. 


611 


They  undertook  to  wield  the  destinies 
of  this  empire,  if  I  may  give  that  name 
to  a  republic,  and  their  policy  was,  and 
they  persisted  in  it,  to  bring  into  this 
country  and  under  this  government  all 
the  territory  they  could.  They  did  it, 
in  the  case  of  Texas,  under  pledges,  ab 
solute  pledges,  to  the  slave  interest,  and 
they  afterwards  lent  their  aid  in  bring 
ing  in  these  new  conquests,  to  take 
their  chance  for  slavery  or  freedom. 
My  honorable  friend  from  Georgia,1  in 
March,  1847,  moved  the  Senate  to  de 
clare  that  the  war  ought  not  to  be  pros 
ecuted  for  the  conquest  of  Territory,  or 
for  the  dismemberment  of  Mexico.  The 
whole  of  the  Northern  Democracy  voted 
against  it.  He  did  not  get  a  vote  from 
them.  It  suited  the  patriotic  and  ele 
vated  sentiments  of  the  Northern  De 
mocracy  to  bring  in  a  world  from  among 
the  mountains  and  valleys  of  California 
and  New  Mexico,  or  any  other  part  of 
Mexico,  and  then  quarrel  about  it  ;  to 
bring  it  in,  and  then  endeavor  to  put 
upon  it  the  saving  grace  of  the  Wilinot 
Proviso.  There  were  two  eminent  and 
highly  respectable  gentlemen  from  the 
North  and  East,  then  leading  gentlemen 
in  the  Senate,  (I  refer,  and  I  do  so  with 
entire  respect,  for  I  entertain  for  both 
of  those  gentlemen,  in  general,  high  re 
gard,  to  Mr.  Dix  of  New  York  and  Mr. 
Niles  of  Connecticut,)  who  both  voted 
for  the  admission  of  Texas.  They 
would  not  have  that  vote  any  other  way 
than  as  it  stood;  and  they  would  have 
it  as  it  did  stand.  I  speak  of  the  vote 
upon  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Those 
two  gentlemen  would  have  the  resolu 
tion  of  annexation  just  as  it  is,  without 
amendment ;  and  they  voted  for  it  just 
as  it  is,  and  their  eyes  were  all  open 
to  its  true  character.  The  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  who  ad 
dressed  us  the  other  day  was  then  Sec 
retary  of  State.  His  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Murphy,  the  Charged' Affaires 
of  the  United  States  in  Texas,  had  been 
published.  That  correspondence  was  all 
before  those  gentlemen,  and  the  Secre 
tary  had  the  boldness  and  candor  to 
avow  in  that  correspondence,  that  the 
1  Mr.  Berrien. 


great  object  sought  by  the  annexation  of 
Texas  was  to  strengthen  the  slave  inter 
est  of  the  South.  Why,  Sir,  he  said  so 
in  so  many  words  — 

MR.  CALHOUN.  Will  the  honorable  Sen 
ator  permit  me  to  interrupt  him  for  a 
moment  ? 

Certainly. 

MR.  CALHODN.  I  am  very  reluctant  to 
interrupt  the  honorable  gentleman ;  but, 
upon  a  point  of  so  much  importance,  I 
deem  it  right  to  put  myself  rectus  in  curia. 
I  did  not  put  it  upon  the  ground  assumed 
by  the  Senator.  I  put  it  upon  this  ground : 
that  Great  Britain  had  announced  to  this 
country,  in  so  many  words,  that  her  object 
was  to  abolish  slavery  in  Texas,  and, 
through  Texas,  to  accomplish  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  United  States  and  the 
world.  The  ground  I  put  it  on  was,  that 
it  would  make  an  exposed  frontier,  and,  if 
Great  Britain  succeeded  in  her  object,  it 
would  be  impossible  that  that  frontier 
could  be  secured  against  the  aggressions  of 
the  Abolitionists;  and  that  this  government 
was  bound,  under  the  guaranties  of  the 
Constitution,  to  protect  us  against  such  a 
state  of  things. 

That  comes,  I  suppose,  Sir,  to  exactly 
the  same  thing.  It  was,  that  Texas 
must  be  obtained  for  the  security  of  the 
slave  interest  of  the  South. 

MR.  CALHOUN.  Another  view  is  very 
distinctly  given. 

That  was  the  object  set  forth  in  the 
correspondence  of  a  worthy  gentleman 
not  now  living,1  who  preceded  the  hon 
orable  member  from  South  Carolina  in 
the  Department  of  State.  There  re 
pose  on  the  files  of  the  Department,  as 
I  have  occasion  to  know,  strong  letters 
from  Mr.  Upshur  to  the  United  States 
Minister  in  England,  and  I  believe  there 
are  some  to  the  same  Minister  from  the 
honorable  Senator  himself,  asserting  to 
this  effect  the  sentiments  of  this  govern 
ment;  namely,  that  Great  Britain  was 
expected  not  to  interfere  to  take  Texas 
out  of  the  hands  of  its  then  existing 
government  and  make  it  a  free  country. 
But  my  argument,  my  suggestion,  is 
this:  that  those  gentlemen  who  com- 
1  Mr.  Upshur. 


612 


SPEECH  OF   THE   TTH   OF   MARCH,   1850, 


posed  the  Northern  Democracy  when 
Texas  was  brought  into  the  Union  saw 
clearly  that  it  was  brought  in  as  a  slave 
country,  and  brought  in  for  the  purpose 
of  being  maintained  as  slave  territory, 
to  the  Greek  Kalends.  I  rather  think 
the  honorable  gentleman  who  was  then 
Secretary  of  State  might,  in  some  of 
his  correspondence  with  Mr.  Murphy, 
have  suggested  that  it  was  not  expedient 
to  say  too  much  about  this  object,  lest 
it  should  create  some  alarm.  At  any 
rate,  Mr.  Murphy  wrote  to  him  that 
England  was  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the 
constitution  of  Texas,  because  it  was  a 
constitution  establishing  slavery;  and 
that  what  the  United  States  had  to  do 
was  to  aid  the  people  of  Texas  in 
upholding  their  constitution  ;  but  that 
nothing  should  be  said  which  should  of 
fend  the  fanatical  men  of  the  North. 
But,  Sir,  the  honorable  member  did 
avow  this  object  himself,  openly,  boldly, 
and  manfully;  he  did  not  disguise  his 
conduct  or  his  motives. 

MR.  CALHOUN.    Never,  never. 

What  he  means  he  is  very  apt  to  say. 

MR.  CALHOUN.     Always,  always. 

And  I  honor  him  for  it. 

This  admission  of  Texas  was  in  1845. 
Then  in  1847,  flacjrante  bello  between 
the  United  States  and  Mexico,  the  prop 
osition  I  have  mentioned  was  brought 
forward  by  my  friend  from  Georgia,  and 
the  Northern  Democracy  voted  steadily 
against  it.  Their  remedy  was  to  apply  to 
the  acquisitions,  after  they  should  come 
in,  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  AVhat  follows? 
These  two  gentlemen,1  worthy  and  hon 
orable  and  influential  men,  (and  if  they 
had  not  been  they  could  not  have  car 
ried  the  measure,)  these  two  gentlemen, 
members  of  this  body,  brought  in  Texas, 
and  by  their  votes  they  also  prevented 
the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  the  hon 
orable  member  from  Georgia,  and  then 
they  went  home  and  took  the  lead  in 
the  Free  Soil  party.  And  there  they 
stand,  Sir!  They  leave  us  here,  bound 
in  honor  and  conscience  by  the  resolu- 

1  Messrs.  Niles  of  Connecticut  and  Dix  of 
New  York. 


tions  of  annexation ;  they  leave  us  here, 
to  take  the^  odium  of  fulfilling  the  obli 
gations  in  favor  of  slavery  which  they 
voted  us  into,  or  else  the  greater  odium 
of  violating  those  obligations,  while 
they  are  at  home  making  capital  and 
rousing  speeches  for  free  soil  and  no 
slavery.  And  therefore  I  say,  Sir,  that 
there  is  not  a  chapter  in  our  history, 
respecting  public  measures  and  public 
men,  more  full  of  what  would  create 
surprise,  more  full  of  what  does  create, 
in  my  mind,  extreme  mortification, 
than  that  of  the  conduct  of  the  North 
ern  Democracy  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  President,  sometimes,  when  a 
man  is  found  in  a  new  relation  to 
things  around  him  and  to  other  men, 
he  says  the  world  has  changed,  and  that 
he  has  not  changed.  I  believe,  Sir,  that 
our  self-respect  leads  us  often  to  make 
this  declaration  in  regard  to  ourselves 
when  it  is  not  exactly  true.  An  indi 
vidual  is  more  apt  to  change,  perhaps, 
than  all  the  world  around  him.  But 
under  the  present  circumstances,  and 
under  the  responsibility  which  I  know 'I 
incur  by  what  I  am  now  stating  here,  I 
feel  at  liberty  to  recur  to  the  various  ex 
pressions  and  statements,  made  at  vari 
ous  times,  of  my  own  opinions  and 
resolutions  respecting  the  admission  of 
Texas,  and  all  that  has  followed.  Sir, 
as  early  as  1836,  or  in  the  early  part  of 
1837,  there  was  conversation  and  corre 
spondence  between  myself  and  some 
private  friends  on  this  project  of  annex 
ing  Texas  to  the  United  States  ;  and  an 
honorable  gentleman  with  whom  1  have 
had  a  long  acquaintance,  a  friend  of 
mine,  now  perhaps  in  this  chamber,  I 
mean  General  Hamilton,  of  South  Caro 
lina,  was  privy  to  that  correspondence. 
1  had  voted  for  the  recognition  of  Texan 
independence,  because  I  believed  it  to 
be  an  existing  fact,  surprising  and  as 
tonishing  as  it  was,  and  I  wished  well  to 
the  new  republic ;  but  I  manifested  from 
the  first  utter  opposition  to  bringing  her, 
with  her  slave  territory,  into  the  Union. 
I  happened,  in  1837,  to  make  a  public 
address  to  political  friends  in  New  York, 
and  I  then  stated  my  sentiments  upon 
the  subject.  It  was  the  first  time  that 


FOR   THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


613 


I  had  occasion  to  advert  to  it ;  and  I  will 
ask  a  friend  near  mo  to  have  the  kind 
ness  to  read  an  extract  from  the  speech 
made  by  me  on  that  occasion.  It  was 
delivered  in  Niblo's  Saloon,  in  1837. 

Mr.  Greene  then  read  the  following  ex 
tract  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  to 
which  he  referred :  — 

"  Gentlemen,  we  all  see  that,  by  whomso 
ever  possessed,  Texas  is  likely  to  be  a  slave- 
holding  country ;  and  I  frankly  avow  my 
entire  unwillingness  to  do  any  thing  that 
shall  extend  the  slavery  of  the  African 
race  on  this  continent,  or  add  other  slave- 
holding  States  to  the  Union.  When  I  say 
that  I  regard  slavery  in  itself  as  a  great 
moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  I  only  use 
language  which  has  been  adopted  by  dis 
tinguished  men,  themselves  citizens  of  slave- 
holding  States.  I  shall  do  nothing,  there 
fore,  to  favor  or  encourage  its  further  ex 
tension.  We  have  slavery  already  amongst 
us.  The  Constitution  found  it  in  the  Union ; 
it  recognized  it,  and  gave  it  solemn  guaran 
ties.  To  the  full  extent  of  these  guaran 
ties  we  are  all  bound,  in  honor,  in  justice, 
and  by  the  Constitution.  All  the  stipula 
tions  contained  in  the  Constitution  in  favor 
of  the  slave-holding  States  which  are  al 
ready  in  the  Union  ought  to  be  fulfilled, 
and,  so  far  as  depends  on  me,  shall  be  ful 
filled,  in  the  fulness  of  their  spirit,  and  to 
the  exactness  of  their  letter.  Slavery,  as 
it  exists  in  the  States,  is  beyond  the  reach 
of  Congress.  It  is  a  concern  of  the  States 
themselves ;  they  have  never  submitted  it 
to  Congress,  and  Congress  has  no  rightful 
power  over  it.  I  shall  concur,  therefore, 
in  no  act,  no  measure,  no  menace,  no  indi 
cation  of  purpose,  which  shall  interfere  or 
threaten  to  interfere  with  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  several  States  over  the 
subject  of  slavery  as  it  exists  within  their 
respective  limits.  All  this  appears  to  me 
to  be  matter  of  plain  and  imperative  duty. 

"  But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  admit 
ting  new  States,  the  subject  assumes  an  en 
tirely  different  aspect.  Our  rights  and  our 
duties  are  then  both  different.  .  .  . 

"  I  see,  therefore,  no  political  necessit}r 
for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  Union  ; 
no  advantages  to  be  derived  from  it ;  and 
objections  to  it  of  a  strong,  and,  in  my 
judgment,  decisive  character." 

I  have  nothing,  Sir,  to  add  to,  or  to 
take  from,  those  sentiments.  That 
speech,  the  Senate  will  perceive,  was 


made  in  1837.  The  purpose  of  imme 
diately  annexing  Texas  at  that  time 
was  abandoned  or  postponed;  and  it 
was  not  revived  with  any  vigor  for  some 
years.  In  the  mean  time  it  happened 
that  I  had  become  a  member  of  the 
executive  administration,  and  was  for 
a  short  period  in  the  Department  of 
State.  The  annexation  of  Texas  was 
a  subject  of  conversation,  not  confiden 
tial,  with  the  President  and  heads  of 
departments,  as  well  as  with  other  pub 
lic  men.  No  serious  attempt  was  then 
made,  however,  to  bring  it  about.  I 
left  the  Department  of  State  in  May, 
1843,  and  shortly  after  I  learned,  though 
by  means  which  were  no  way  connected 
with  official  information,  that  a  de 
sign  had  been  taken  up  of  bringing 
Texas,  with  her  slave  territory  and 
population,  into  this  Union.  I  wras  in 
Washington  at  the  time,  and  persons 
are  now  here  who  will  remember  that 
we  had  an  arranged  meeting  for  conver 
sation  upon  it.  I  went  home  to  Massa 
chusetts  and  proclaimed  the  existence 
of  that  purpose,  but  I  could  get  no  au 
dience  and  but  little  attention.  Some 
did  not  believe  it,  and  some  were  too 
much  engaged  in  their  own  pursuits  to 
give  it  any  heed.  They  had  gone  to 
their  farms  or  to  their  merchandise,  and 
it  was  impossible  to  arouse  any  feeling 
in  New  England,  or  in  Massachusetts, 
that  should  combine  the  two  great  po 
litical  parties  against  this  annexation; 
and,  indeed,  there  was  no  hope  of  bring 
ing  the  Northern  Democracy  into  that 
view,  for  their  leaning  was  all  the  other 
way.  But,  Sir,  even  with  Whigs,  and 
leading  Whigs,  I  am  ashamed  to  say, 
there  was  a  great  indifference  towards 
the  admission  of  Texas,  with  slave  ter 
ritory,  into  this  Union. 

The  project  went  on.  I  was  then  out 
of  Congress.  The  annexation  resolu 
tions  passed  on  the  1st  of  March,  1845; 
the  legislature  of  Texas  complied  with 
the  conditions  and  accepted  the  guaran 
ties;  for  the  language  of  the  resolution 
is,  that  Texas  is  to  come  in  "  upon  the 
conditions  and  under  the  guaranties 
herein  prescribed."  I  was  returned  to 
the  Senate  in  March,  1845,  and  was 


614 


SPEECH   OF  THE   TTH   OF   MARCH,   1850, 


here  in  December  following,  when  the 
acceptance  by  Texas  of  the  conditions 
proposed  by  Congress  was  communi 
cated  to  us  by  the  President,  and  an 
act  for  the  consummation  of  the  union 
was  laid  before  the  two  houses.  The 
connection  was  then  not  completed.  A 
final  law,  doing  the  deed  of  annexation 
ultimately,  had  not  been  passed;  and 
when  it  was  put  upon  its  final  passage 
here,  I  expressed  my  opposition  to  it, 
and  recorded  my  vote  in  the  negative; 
and  there  that  vote  stands,  with  the  ob 
servations  that  I  made  upon  that  occa 
sion.1  Nor  is  this  the  only  occasion  on 
which  I  have  expressed  myself  to  the 
same  effect.  It  has  happened  that,  be 
tween  1837  and  this  time,  on  various 
occasions,  I  have  expressed  my  entire 
opposition  to  the  admission  of  slave 
States,  or  the  acquisition  of  new  slave 
territories,  to  be  added  to  the  United 
States.  I  know,  Sir,  no  change  in  my 
own  sentiments,  or  my  own  purposes, 
in  that  respect.  I  will  now  ask  my 
friend  from  Rhode  Island  to  read  an 
other  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine 
made  at  a  Whig  Convention  in  Spring 
field,  Massachusetts,  in  the  month  of 
September,  1847. 

Mr.  Greene  here  read  the  following 
extract :  — 

"  We  hear  much  just  now  of  a  panacea 
for  the  dangers  and  evils  of  slavery  and 
slave  annexation,  which  they  call  the 
'  Wilmot  Proviso.'  That  certainly  is  a 
just  sentiment,  but  it  is  not  a  sentiment  to 
found  any  new  party  upon.  It  is  not  a 
sentiment  on  which  Massachusetts  Whigs 
differ.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this  hall  who 
holds  to  it  more  firmly  than  I  do,  nor  one 
who  adheres  to  it  more  than  another. 

"  I  feel  some  little  interest  in  this  matter, 
Sir.  Did  not  I  commit  myself  in  1837  to 
the  whole  doctrine,  fully,  entirely?  And 
1  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  I  cannot 
quite  consent  that  more  recent  discoverers 
should  claim  the  merit  and  take  out  a 
patent. 

"  I  deny  the  priority  of  their  invention. 
Allow  me  to  say,  Sir,  it  is  not  their 
thunder.  .  .  . 

"  We  are  to  use  the  first  and  the  last  and 

1  See  the  remarks  on  the  Admission  of  Texas, 
in  Webster's  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  55. 


every  occasion  which  offers  to  oppose  the 
extension  gf  slave  power. 

"  But  I  speak  of  it  here,  as  in  Congress, 
as  a  political  question,  a  question  for 
statesmen  to  act  upon.  We  must  so  re 
gard  it.  I  certainly  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  it  is  less  important  in  a  moral  point  of 
view,  that  it  is  not  more  important  in  many 
other  points  of  view  ;  but  as  a  legislator, 
or  in  any  official  capacity,  I  must  look  at 
it,  consider  it,  and  decide  it  as  a  matter  of 
political  action." 

On  other  occasions,  in  debates  here, 
I  have  expressed  my  determination  to 
vote  for  no  acquisition,  cession,  or  an 
nexation,  north  or  south,  east  or  west. 
My  opinion  has  been,  that  we  have  ter 
ritory  enough,  and  that  we  should 
follow  the  Spartan  maxim,  u  Improve, 
adorn  what  you  have,"  seek  no  fur 
ther.  I  think  that  it  was  in  some 
observations  that  I  made  on  the  three- 
million  loan  bill  that  I  avowed  this  sen 
timent.  In  short,  Sir,  it  has  been 
avowed  quite  as  often,  in  as  many 
places,  and  before  as  many  assemblies, 
as  any  humble  opinions  of  mine  ought 
to  be  avowed. 

But  now  that,  under  certain  condi 
tions,  Texas  is  in  the  Union,  with  all  her 
territory,  as  a  slave  State,  with  a  solemn 
pledge,  also,  that,  if  she  shall  be  di 
vided  into  many  States,  those  States 
may  come  in  as  slave  States  south  of 
36°  30',  how  are  we  to  deal  with  this 
subject?  I  know  no  way  of  honest 
legislation,  when  the  proper  time  comes 
for  the  enactment,  but  to  carry  into 
effect  all  that  we  have  stipulated  to  do. 
I  do  not  entirely  agree  with  my  honor 
able  friend  from  Tennessee,1  that,  as 
soon  as  the  time  comes  when  she  is  en 
titled  to  another  representative,  we 
should  create  a  new  State.  On  former 
occasions,  in  creating  new  States  out  of 
territories,  we  have  generally  gone  upon 
the  idea  that,  when  the  population  of 
the  territory  amounts  to  about  sixty 
thousand,  we  would  consent  to  its  ad 
mission  as  a  State.  But  it  is  quite  a 
different  thing  when  a  State  is  divided, 
and  two  or  more  States  made  out  of  it, 
It  does  not  follow  in  such  a  case  that 
i  Mr.  Bell. 


FOR   THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


615 


the  same  rule  of  apportionment  should 
be  applied.  That,  however,  is  a 
matter  for  the  consideration  of  Con 
gress,  when  the  proper  time  arrives.  I 
may  not  then  be  here;  I  may  have  no 
vote  to  give  on  the  occasion ;  but  I  wish 
it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that, 
according  to  my  view  of  the  matter,  this 
government  is  solemnly  pledged,  by  law 
and  contract,  to  create  new  States  out 
of  Texas,  with  her  consent,  when  her 
population  shall  justify  and  call  for  such 
a  proceeding,  and,  so  far  as  such  States 
are  formed  out  of  Texan  territory  lying 
south  of  36°  30',  to  let  them  come  in  as 
slave  States.  That  is  the  meaning  of 
the  contract  which  our  friends,  the 
Northern  Democracy,  have  left  us  to 
fulfil;  and  I,  for  one,  mean  to  fulfil  it, 
because  I  will  not  violate  the  faith  of 
the  government.  What  I  mean  to  say 
is,  that  the  time  for  the  admission  of 
new  States  formed  out  of  Texas,  the 
number  of  such  States,  their  bounda 
ries,  the  requisite  amount  of  popula 
tion,  and  all  other  things  connected 
with  the  admission,  are  in  the  free  dis 
cretion  of  Congress,  except  this;  to  wit, 
that,  when  new  States  formed  out  of 
Texas  are  to  be  admitted,  they  have  a 
right,  by  legal  stipulation  and  contract, 
to  come  in  as  slave  States. 

Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mex 
ico,  I  held  slavery  to  be  excluded  from 
those  territories  by  a  law  even  superior 
to  that  which  admits  and  sanctions  it  in 
Texas.  I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of 
physical  geography,  the  law  of  the  for 
mation  of  the  earth.  That  law  settles 
for  ever,  with  a  strength  beyond  all 
terms  of  human  enactment,  that  slavery 
cannot  exist  in  California  or  New  Mex 
ico.  Understand  me,  Sir;  I  mean  sla 
very  as  we  regard  it ;  the  slavery  of  the 
colored  race  as  it  exists  in  the  Southern 
States.  I  shall  not  discuss  the  point, 
but  leave  it  to  the  learned  gentlemen 
who  have  undertaken  to  discuss  it;  but 
I  suppose  there  is  no  slavery  of  that 
description  in  California  now.  I  under 
stand  that  peonism,  a  sort  of  penal  ser 
vitude,  exists  there,  or  rather  a  sort  of 
voluntary  sale  of  a  man  and  his  off 
spring  for  debt,  an  arrangement  of  a 


peculiar  nature  known  to  the  law  of 
Mexico.  But  what  I  mean  to  say  is, 
that  it  is  as  impossible  that  African 
slavery,  as  we  see  it  among  us,  should 
find  its  way,  or  be  introduced,  into 
California  and  New  Mexico,  as  any 
other  natural  impossibility.  California 
and  New  Mexico  are  Asiatic  in  their 
formation  and  scenery.  They  are  com 
posed  of  vast  ridges  of  mountains,  of 
great  height,  with  broken  ridges  and 
deep  valleys.  The  sides  of  these  moun 
tains  are  entirely  barren;  their  tops 
capped  by  perennial  snow.  There  may  • 
be  in  California,  now  made  free  by  its 
constitution,  and  no  doubt  there  are, 
some  tracts  of  valuable  land.  But  it  is 
not  so  in  New  Mexico.  Pray,  what  is 
the  evidence  which  every  gentleman 
must  have  obtained  on  this  subject, 
from  information  sought  by  himself 
or  communicated  by  others?  I  have 
inquired  and  read  all  I  could  find,  in 
order  to  acquire  information  on  this 
important  subject.  What  is  there  in 
New  Mexico  that  could,  by  any  possi 
bility,  induce  anybody  to  go  there  with 
slaves?  There  are  some  narrow  strips 
of  tillable  land  on  the  borders  of  the 
rivers ;  but  the  rivers  themselves  dry  up 
before  midsummer  is  gone.  All  that 
the  people  can  do  in  that  region  is  to 
raise  some  little  articles,  some  little 
wheat  for  their  tortillas,  and  that  by 
irrigation.  And  who  expects  to  see  a 
hundred  black  men  cultivating  tobacco, 
corn,  cotton,  rice,  or  any  thing  else,  on 
lands  in  New  Mexico,  made  fertile  only 
by  irrigation? 

I  look  upon  it,  therefore,  as  a  fixed 
fact,  to  use  the  current  expression  of 
the  day,  that  both  California  and  New 
Mexico  are  destined  to  be  free,  so  far  as 
they  are  settled  at  all,  which  I  believe, 
in  regard  to  New  Mexico,  will  be  but 
partially  for  a  great  length  of  time; 
free  by  the  arrangement  of  things  or 
dained  by  the  Power  above  us.  I  have 
therefore  to  say,  in  this  respect  also, 
that  this  country  is  fixed  for  freedom, 
to  as  many  persons  as  shall  ever  live  in 
it,  by  a  less  repealable  law  than  that 
which  attaches  to  the  right  of  holding 
slaves  in  Texas ;  and  I  will  say  further, 


616 


SPEECH  OF  THE   7xn   OF  MARCH,  1850, 


that,  if  a  resolution  or  a  bill  were  now 
before  us,  to  provide  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  New  Mexico,  I  would  not 
vote  to  put  any  prohibition  into  it  what 
ever.  Such  a  prohibition  would  be  idle, 
as  it  respects  any  effect  it  would  have 
upon  the  territory;  and  I  would  not 
take  pains  uselessly  to  reaffirm  an  ordi 
nance  of  nature,  nor  to  re-enact  the  will 
of  God.  I  would  put  in  no  Wilmot 
Proviso  for  the  mere  purpose  of  a  taunt 
or  a  reproach.  I  would  put  into  it  no 
evidence  of  the  votes  of  superior  power, 
exercised  for  no  purpose  but  to  wound 
the  pride,  whether  a  just  and  a  rational 
pride,  or  an  irrational  pride,  of  the  citi 
zens  of  the  Southern  States.  I  have  no 
such  object,  no  such  purpose.  They 
would  think  it  a  taunt,  an  indignity; 
they  would  think  it  to  be  an  act  taking 
away  from  them  what  they  regard  as  a 
proper  equality  of  privilege.  Whether 
they  expect  to  realize  any  benefit  from 
it  or  not,  they  would  think  it  at  least  a 
plain  theoretic  wrong;  that  something 
more  or  less  derogatory  to  their  charac 
ter  and  their  rights  had  taken  place. 
I  propose  to  inflict  no  such  wound  upon 
anybody,  unless  something  essentially 
important  to  the  country,  and  efficient 
to  the  preservation  of  liberty  and  free 
dom,  is  to  be  effected.  I  repeat,  there 
fore,  Sir,  and,  as  I  do  not  propose  to 
address  the  Senate  often  on  this  subject, 
I  repeat  it  because  I  wish  it  to  be  dis 
tinctly  understood,  that,  for  the  reasons 
stated,  if  a  proposition  were  now  here  to 
establish  a  government  for  New  Mexico, 
and  it  was  moved  to  insert  a  provision 
for  a  prohibition  of  slavery,  I  would  not 
vote  for  it. 

Sir,  if  we  were  now  making  a  gov 
ernment  for  New  Mexico,  and  anybody 
should  propose  a  Wilmot  Proviso,  I 
should  treat  it  exactly  as  Mr.  Polk 
treated  that  provision  for  excluding  sla 
very  from  Oregon.  Mr.  Polk  was  known 
to  be  in  opinion  decidedly  averse  to  the 
Wilmot  Proviso;  but  he  felt  the  neces 
sity  of  establishing  a  government  for  the 
Territory  of  Oregon.  The  proviso  was 
in  the  bill,  but  he  knew  it  would  be  en 
tirely  nugatory;  and,  since  it  must  be 
entirely  nugatory,  since  it  took  away  no 


right,  no  describable,  no  tangible,  no 
appreciable  right  of  the  South,  he  said 
he  would  sign  the  bill  for  the  sake  of 
enacting  a  law  to  form  a  government  in 
that  Territory,  and  let  that  entirely  use 
less,  and,  in  that  connection,  entirely 
senseless,  proviso  remain.  Sir,  we  hear 
occasionally  of  the  annexation  of  Can 
ada;  and  if  there  be  any  man,  any  of  the 
Northern  Democracy,  or  any  one  of  the 
Fre*  Soil  party,  who  supposes  it  neces 
sary  to  insert  a  Wilmot  Proviso  in  a 
territorial  government  for  New  Mexico, 
that  man  would  of  course  be  of  opinion 
that  it  is  necessary  to  protect  the  ever 
lasting  snows  of  Canada  from  the  foot 
of  slavery  by  the  same  overspreading 
wing  of  an  act  of  Congress.  Sir,  wher 
ever  there  is  a  substantive  good  to  be 
done,  wherever  there  is  a  foot  of  land  to 
be  prevented  from  becoming  slave  terri 
tory,  I  am  ready  to  assert  the  princi 
ple  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery.  I  am 
pledged  to  it  from  the  year  1837 ;  I  have 
been  pledged  to  it  again  and  again ;  and 
I  will  perform  those  pledges;  but  1  will 
not  do  a  thing  unnecessarily  that  wounds 
the  feelings  of  others,  or  that  does  dis 
credit  to  my  own  understanding. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  estab 
lished,  so  far  as  I  proposed  to  do  so,  the 
proposition  with  which  I  set  out,  and 
upon  which  I  intend  to  stand  or  fall; 
and  that  is,  that  the  whole  territory 
within  the  former  United  States,  or  in 
the  newly  acquired  Mexican  provinces, 
has  a  fixed  and  settled  character,  now 
fixed  and  settled  by  law  which  cannot 
be  repealed,  —  in  the  case  of  Texas  with 
out  a  violation  of  public  faith,  and  by  no 
human  power  in  regard  to  California  or 
New  Mexico;  that,  therefore,  under  one 
or  other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  land 
in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories  has 
already  received  a  fixed  and  decided 
character. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  excited  times  in 
which  we  live,  there  is  found  to  exist  a 
state  of  crimination  and  recrimination 
between  the  North  and  South.  There 
are  lists  of  grievances  produced  by  each ; 
and  those  grievances,  real  or  supposed, 
alienate  the  minds  of  one  portion  of  the 


FOR  THE   CONSTITUTION    AND   THE   UNION. 


617 


country  from  the  other,  exasperate  the 
feelings,  and  subdue  the  sense  of  fra 
ternal  affection,  patriotic  love,  and  mu 
tual  regard.  I  shall  bestow  a  little  at 
tention,  Sir,  upon  these  various  grievan 
ces  existing  on  the  one  side  and  on  the 
other.  I  begin  with  complaints  of  the 
South.  I  will  not  answer,  further  than 
I  have,  the  general  statements  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina, 
that  the  North  has  prospered  at  the  ex 
pense  of  the  South  in  consequence  of  the 
manner  of  administering  this  govern 
ment,  in  the  collecting  of  its  revenues, 
and  so  forth.  These  are  disputed  topics, 
and  I  have  no  inclination  to  enter  into 
them.  But  I  will  allude  to  other  com 
plaints  of  the  South,  and  especially  to 
one  which  has  in  my  opinion  just  foun 
dation  ;  and  that  is,  that  there  has  been 
found  at  the  North,  among  individuals 
and  among  legislators,  a  disinclination 
to  perform  fully  their  constitutional 
duties  in  regard  to  the  return  of  persons 
bound  to  service  who  have  escaped  into 
the  free  States.  In  that  respect,  the 
South,  in  my  judgment,  is  right,  and 
the  North  is  wrong.  Every  member  of 
every  Northern  legislature  is  bound  by 
oath,  like  every  other  officer  in  the  coun 
try,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States;  and  the  article  of  the 
Constitution l  which  says  to  these  States 
that  they  shall  deliver  up  fugitives  from 
service  is  as  binding  in  honor  and  con 
science  as  any  other  article.  No  man 
fulfils  his  duty  in  any  legislature  who 
sets  himself  to  find  excuses,  evasions, 
escapes  from  this  constitutional  obliga 
tion.  I  have  always  thought  that  the 
Constitution  addressed  itself 'to  the  legis 
latures  of  the  States  or  to  the  States 
themselves.  It  says  that  those  persons 
escaping  to  other  States  "shall  be  de 
livered  up,"  and  I  confess  I  have  always 
been  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  an  in 
junction  upon  the  States  themselves. 
When  it  is  said  that  a  person  escaping 
into  another  State,  and  coming  there 
fore  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  State, 
shall  be  delivered  up,  it  seems  to  me  the 
import  of  the  clause  is,  that  the  State 
itself,  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution, 
l  Art.  IV.  Sect.  2,  §  2. 


shall  cause  him  to  be  delivered  up. 
That  is  my  judgment.  I  have  always 
entertained  that  opinion,  and  I  entertain 
it  now.  But  when  the  subject,  some  years 
ago,  was  before  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  the  majority  of  the 
judges  held  that  the  power  to  cause  fugi 
tives  from  service  to  he  delivered  up  was 
a  power  to  be  exercised  under  the  au 
thority  of  this  government.  I  do  not 
know,  on  the  whole,  that  it  may  not 
have  been  a  fortunate  decision.  My 
habit  is  to  respect  the  result  of  judicial 
deliberations  and  the  solemnity  of  judi 
cial  decisions.  As  it  now  stands,  the 
business  of  seeing  that  these  fugitives 
are  delivered  up  resides  in  the  power  of 
Congress  and  the  national  judicature, 
and  my  friend  at  the  head  of  the  Judi 
ciary  Committee l  has  a  bill  on  the  sub 
ject  now  before  the  Senate,  which,  with 
some-  amendments  to  it,  I  propose  to 
support,  with  all  its  provisions,  to  the 
fullest  extent.  And  I  desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  all  sober-minded  men  at 
the  North,  of  all  conscientious  men,  of 
all  men  who  are  not  carried  away  by 
some  fanatical  idea  or  some  false  im 
pression,  to  their  constitutional  obliga 
tions.  I  put  it  to  all  the  sober  and 
sound  minds  at  the  North  as  a  question 
of  morals  and  a  question  of  conscience. 
What  right  have  they,  in  their  legisla 
tive  capacity  or  any  other  capacity,  to 
endeavor  to  get  round  this  Constitution, 
or  to  embarrass  the  free  exercise  of  the 
rights  secured  by  the  Constitution  to  the 
persons  whose  slaves  escape  from  them? 
None  at  all;  none  at  all.  Neither  in 
the  forum  of  conscience,  nor  before  the 
face  of  the  Constitution,  are  they,  in 
my  opinion,  justified  in  such  an  attempt. 
Of  course  it  is  a  matter  for  their  consid 
eration.  They  probably,  in  the  excite 
ment  of  the  times,  have  not  stopped  to 
consider  of  this.  They  have  followed 
what  seemed  to  be  the  current  of  thought 
and  of  motives,  as  the  occasion  arose, 
and  they  have  neglected  to  investigate 
fully  the  real  question,  and  to  consider 
their  constitutional  obligations;  which, 
I  am  sure,  if  they  did  consider,  they 
would  fulfil  with  alacrity.  I  repeat, 
1  Mr.  Mason. 


618 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH  OF   MARCH,   1850, 


therefore,  Sir,  that  here  is  a  well-founded 
ground  of  complaint  against  the  North, 
which  ought  to  be  removed,  which  it  is 
now  in  the  power  of  the  different  depart 
ments  of  this  government  to  remove; 
which  calls  for  the  enactment  of  proper 
laws  authorizing  the  judicature  of  this 
government,  in  the  several  States,  to  do 
all  that  is  necessary  for  the  recapture  of 
fugitive  slaves  and  for  their  restoration 
to  those  who  claim  them.  Wherever  I 
go,  and  whenever  I  speak  on  the  subject, 
and  when  I  speak  here  I  desire  to  speak 
to  the  whole  North,  I  say  that  the  South 
has  been  injured  in  this  respect,  and 
has  a  right  to  complain ;  and  the  North 
has  been  too  careless  of  what  I  think  the 
Constitution  peremptorily  and  emphati 
cally  enjoins  upon  her  as  a  duty. 

Complaint  has  been  made  against 
certain  resolutions  that  emanate  from 
legislatures  at  the  North,  and  are  sent 
here  to  us,  not  only  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  this  District,  but  sometimes 
recommending  Congress  to  consider  the 
means  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the 
States.  I  should  be  sorry  to  be  called 
upon  to  present  any  resolutions  here 
which  could  not  be  referable  to  any 
committee  or  any  power  in  Congress; 
and  therefore  I  should  be  unwilling  to 
receive  from  the  legislature  of  Massa 
chusetts  any  instructions  to  present  reso 
lutions  expressive  of  any  opinion  what 
ever  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  as  it 
exists  at  the  present  moment  in  the 
States,  for  two  reasons:  first,  because  I 
do  not  consider  that  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts  has  any  thing  to  do  with 
it;  and  next,  because  I  do  not  consider 
that  I,  as  her  representative  here,  have 
any  thing  to  do  with  it.  It  has  become, 
in  my  opinion,  quite  too  common;  and 
if  the  legislatures  of  the  States  do  not 
like  that  opinion,  they  have  a  great  deal 
more  power  to  put  it  down  than  I  have 
to  uphold  it;  it  has  become,  in  my  opin 
ion,  quite  too  common  a  practice  for  the 
State  legislatures  to  present  resolutions 
here  on  all  subjects  and  to  instruct  us  on 
all  subjects.  There  is  no  public  man 
that  requires  instruction  more  than  I 
do,  or  who  requires  information  more 
than  I  do,  or  desires  it  more  heartily; 


but  I  do  not  like  to  have  it  in  too  im 
perative  a  shape.  I  took  notice,  with 
pleasure,  of  some  remarks  made  upon 
this  subject,  the  other  day,  in  the  Sen 
ate  of  Massachusetts,  by  a  young  man 
of  talent  and  character,  of  whom  the 
best  hopes  may  be  entertained.  I  mean 
Mr.  Hillard.  He  told  the  Senate  of  Mas 
sachusetts  that  he  would  vote  for  no  in 
structions  whatever  to  be  forwarded  to 
members  of  Congress,  nor  for  any  reso 
lutions  to  be-  offered  expressive  of  the 
sense  of  Massachusetts  as  to  what  her 
members  of  Congress  ought  to  do.  He 
said  that  he  saw  no  propriety  in  one  set 
of  public  servants  giving  instructions 
and  reading  lectures  to  another  set  of 
public  servants.  To  his  own  master 
each  of  them  must  stand  or  fall,  and 
that  master  is  his  constituents.  I  wish 
these  sentiments  could  become  more 
common.  I  have  never  entered  into 
the  question,  and  never  shall,  as  to  the 
binding  force  of  instructions.  I  will, 
however,  simply  say  this:  if  there  be 
any  matter  pending  in  this  body,  while 
I  am  a  member  of  it,  in  which  Massa 
chusetts  has  an  interest  of  her  own  not 
adverse  to  the  general  interests  of  the 
country,  I  shall  pursue  her  instructions 
with  gladness  of  heart  and  with  all  the 
efficiency  which  I  can  bring  to  the  occa 
sion.  But  if  the  question  be  one  which 
affects  her  interest,  and  at  the  same  time 
equally  affects  the  interests  of  all  the 
other  States,  I  shall  no  more  regard  her 
particular  wishes  or  instructions  than  I 
should  regard  the  wishes  of  a  man  who 
might  appoint  me  an  arbitrator  or  ref 
eree  to  decide  some  question  of  impor 
tant  private  right  between  him  and  his 
neighbor,  and  then  instruct  me  to  decide 
in  his  favor.  If  ever  there  was  a  gov 
ernment  upon  earth  it  is  this  govern 
ment,  if  ever  there  was  a  body  upon 
earth  it  is  this  body,  which  should  con 
sider  itself  as  composed  by  agreement  of 
all,  each  member  appointed  by  some,  but 
organized  by  the  general  consent  of  all, 
sitting  here,  under  the  solemn  obliga 
tions  of  oath  and  conscience,  to  do  that 
which  they  think  to  be  best  for  the  good 
of  the  whole. 

Then,   Sir,   there  are  the   Abolition 


FOR  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION. 


619 


societies,  of  which  I  am  unwilling  to 
speak,  but  in  regard  to  which  I  have 
very  clear  notions  and  opinions.  I  do 
not  think  them  useful.  I  think  their 
operations  for  the  last  twenty  years 
have  produced  nothing  good  or  valua 
ble.  At  the  same  time,  I  believe  thou 
sands  of  their  members  to  be  honest 
and  good  men,  perfectly  well-meaning 
men.  They  have  excited  feelings ;  they 
think  they  must  do  something  for  the 
cause  of  liberty;  and,  in  their  sphere  of 
action,  they  do  not  see  what  else  they 
can  do  than  to  contribute  to  an  Aboli 
tion  press,  or  an  Abolition  society,  or  to 
pay  an  Abolition  lecturer.  I  do  not 
mean  to  impute  gross  motives  even  to 
the  leaders  of  these  societies;  but  I  am 
not  blind  to  the  consequences  of  their 
proceedings.  I  cannot  but  see  what 
mischiefs  their  interference  with  the 
South  has  produced.  And  is  it  not 
plain  to  every  man?  Let  any  gentle 
man  who  entertains  doubts  on  this 
point  recur  to  the  debates  in  the  Vir 
ginia  House  of  Delegates  in  1832, 
and  he  will  see  with  what  freedom 
a  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Jefferson 
Randolph  for  the  gradual  abolition  of 
slavery  was  discussed  in  that  body. 
Every  one  spoke  of  slavery  as  he 
thought;  very  ignominious  and  dispar 
aging  names  and  epithets  were  applied 
to  it.  The  debates  in  the  House  of 
Delegates  on  that  occasion,  I  believe, 
were  all  published.  They  were  read  by 
every  colored  man  who  could  read ;  and 
to  those  who  could  not  read,  those  de 
bates  were  read  by  others.  At  that  time 
Virginia  was  riot  unwilling  or  afraid  to 
discuss  this  question,  and  to  let  that 
part  of  her  population  know  as  much 
of  the  discussion  as  they  could  learn. 
That  was  in  1832.  As  has  been  said 
bv  the  honorable  member  from  South 
Carolina,  these  Abolition  societies  com 
menced  their  course  of  action  in  1835. 
It  is  said,  I  do  not  know  how  true  it 
may  be,  that  they  sent  incendiary  pub 
lications  into  the  slave  States;  at  any 
rate,  they  attempted  to  arouse,  and  did 
arouse,  a  very  strong  feeling;  in  other 
words,  they  created  great  agitation  in  the 
North  against  Southern  slavery.  Well, 


what  was  the  result?  The  bonds  of 
the  slaves  were  bound  more  firmly  than 
before,  their  rivets  were  more  strongly 
fastened.  Public  opinion,  which  in  Vir 
ginia  had  begun  to  be  exhibited  against 
slavery,  and  was  opening  out  for  the  dis 
cussion  of  the  question,  drew  back  and 
shut  itself  up  in  its  castle.  I  wish  to 
know  whether  anybody  in  Virginia  can 
now  talk  openly  as  Mr.  Randolph,  Gov 
ernor  McDowell,  and  others  talked  in 
1832,  and  sent  their  remarks  to  the 
press?  We  all  know  the  fact,  and  we 
all  know  the  cause  ;  and  every  thing 
that  these  agitating  people  have  done 
has  been,  not  to  enlarge,  but  to  restrain, 
not  to  set  free,  but  to  bind  faster,  the 
slave  population  of  the  South.1 

Again,  Sir,  the  violence  of  the  North 
ern  press  is  complained  of.  The  press 
violent!  Why,  Sir,  the  press  is  violent 
everywhere.  There  are  outrageous  re 
proaches  in  the  North  against  the  South, 
and  there  are  reproaches  as  vehement  in 
the  South  against  the  North.  Sir,  the 
extremists  of  both  parts  of  this  country 
are  violent ;  they  mistake  loud  and  vio 
lent  talk  for  eloquence  and  for  reason. 
They  think  that  he  who  talks  loudest 
reasons  best.  And  this  we  must  ex 
pect,  when  the  press  is  free,  as  it  is 
here,  and  I  trust  always  will  be;  for, 
with  all  its  licentiousness  and  all  its 
evil,  the  entire  and  absolute  freedom  of 
the  press  is  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  government  on  the  basis  of  a  free 
constitution.  Wherever  it  exists  there 
will  be  foolish  and  violent  paragraphs  in 
the  newspapers,  as  there  are,  I  am  sorry 
to  say,  foolish  and  violent  speeches  in 
both  houses  of  Congress.  In  truth,  Sir, 
I  must  say  that,  in  my  opinion,  the 
vernacular  tongue  of  the  country  has 
become  greatly  vitiated,  depraved,  and 
corrupted  by  the  style  of  our  Congres 
sional  debates.  And  if  it  were  possible 
for  those  debates  to  vitiate  the  principles 
of  the  people  as  much  as  they  have  de 
praved  their  tastes,  I  should  cry  out, 
"  God  save  the  Republic!  " 

Well,  in  all  this  I  see  no  solid  griev 
ance,  no  grievance  presented  by  the 
South,  within  the  redress  of  the  gov- 
1  See  Note  at  the  end  of  the  Speech. 


620 


SPEECH  OF  THE   TTH  OF  MARCH,  1850, 


ernment,  but  the  single  one  to  which  I 
have  referred;  and  that  is,  the  want  of 
a  proper  regard  to  the  injunction  of  the 
Constitution  for  the  delivery  of  fugitive 
slaves. 

There  are  also  complaints  of  the  North 
against  the  South.  I  need  not  go  over 
them  particularly.  The  first  and  gravest 
is,  that  the  North  adopted  the  Constitu 
tion,  recognizing  the  existence  of  slavery 
in  the  States,  and  recognizing  the  right, 
to  a  certain  extent,  of  the  representation 
of  slaves  in  Congress,  under  a  state  of 
sentiment  and  expectation  which  does 
not  now  exist;  and  that,  by  events,  by 
circumstances,  by  the  eagerness  of  the 
South  to  acquire  territory  and  extend 
her  slave  population,  the  North  finds 
itself,  in  regard  to  the  relative  influence 
of  the  South  and  the  North,  of  the  free 
States  and  the  slave  States,  where  it 
never  did  expect  to  find  itself  when 
they  agreed  to  the  compact  of  the  Con 
stitution.  They  complain,  therefore, 
that,  instead  of  slavery  being  regarded 
as  an  evil,  as  it  was  then,  an  evil  which 
all  hoped  would  be  extinguished  grad 
ually,  it  is  now  regarded  by  the  South 
as  an  institution  to  be  cherished,  and 
preserved,  and  extended ;  an  institution 
which  the  South  has  already  extended 
to  the  utmost  of  her  power  by  the  acqui 
sition  of  new  territory. 

Well,  then,  passing  from  that,  every 
body  in  the  North  reads  ;  and  every 
body  reads  whatsoever  the  newspapers 
contain;  and  the  newspapers,  some  of 
them,  especially  those  presses  to  which 
I  have  alluded,  are  careful  to  spread 
about  among  the  people  every  reproach 
ful  sentiment  uttered  by  any  Southern 
man  bearing  at  all  against  the  North; 
every  thing  that  is  calculated  to  exas 
perate  and  to  alienate  ;  and  there  are 
many  such  things,  as  everybody  will 
admit,  from  the  South,  or  some  portion 
of  it,  which  are  disseminated  among 
the  reading  people;  and  they  do  exas 
perate,  and  alienate,  and  produce  a  most 
mischievous  effect  upon  the  public  mind 
at  the  North.  Sir,  I  would  not  notice 
things  of  this  sort  appearing  in  obscure 
quarters;  but  one  thing  has  occurred  in 
this  debate  which  struck  me  very  forci 


bly.  An  honorable  member  from  Lou 
isiana  addressed  us  the  other  day  on  this 
subject.  I  suppose  there  is  not  a  more 
amiable  ^ind  worthy  gentleman  in  this 
chamber,  nor  a  gentleman  who  would  be 
more  slow  to  give  offence  to  anybody, 
and  he  did  not  mean  in  his  remarks  to 
give  offence.  But  what  did  he  say? 
Why,  Sir,  he  took  pains  to  run  a  con 
trast  between  the  slaves  of  the  South 
and  the  laboring  people  of  the  North, 
giving  the  preference,  in  all  points  of 
condition,  and  comfort,  and  happiness, 
to  the  slaves  of  the  South.  The  honor 
able  member,  doubtless,  did  not  suppose 
that  he  gave  any  offence,  or  did  any  in 
justice.  He  was  merely  expressing  his 
opinion.  But  does  he  know  how  re 
marks  of  that  sort  will  be  received  by 
the  laboring  people  of  the  North  ? 
Why,  who  are  the  laboring  people  of 
the  North?  They  are  the  whole  North. 
They  are  the  people  who  till  their  own 
farms  with  their  own  hands;  freehold 
ers,  educated  men,  independent  men. 
Let  me  say,  Sir,  that  five  sixths  of  the 
whole  property  of  the  North  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  laborers  of  the  North; 
they  cultivate  their  farms,  they  educate 
their  children,  they  provide  the  means 
of  independence.  If  they  are  not  free 
holders,  they  earn  wages;  these  wages 
accumulate,  are  turned  into  capital,  into 
new  freeholds,  and  small  capitalists  are 
created.  Such  is  the  case,  and  such 
the  course  of  things,  among  the  indus 
trious  and  frugal.  And  what  can  these 
people  think  when  so  respectable  and 
worthy  a  gentleman  as  the  member  from 
Louisiana  undertakes  to  prove  that  the 
absolute  ignorance  and  the  abject  sla 
very  of  the  South  are  more  in  conformity 
with  the  high  purposes  and  destiny  of 
immortal,  rational  Iniman  beings,  than 
the  educated,  the  independent  free  labor 
of  the  North? 

There  is  a  more  tangible  and  irritat 
ing  cause  of  grievance  at  the  North. 
Free  blacks  are  constantly  employed  in 
the  vessels  of  the  North,  generally  as 
cooks  or  stewards.  When  the  vessel 
arrives  at  a  Southern  port,  these  free 
colored  men  are  taken  on  shore,  by  the 
police  or  municipal  authority,  impris- 


FOR   THE   CONSTITUTION   AND    THE   UNION. 


621 


oned,  and  kept  in  prison  till  the  vessel  is 
again  ready  to  sail.  This  is  not  only  irri 
tating,  but  exceedingly  unjustifiable  and 
oppressive.  Mr.  Hoar's  mission,  some 
time  ago,  to  South  Carolina,  was  a  well- 
intended  effort  to  remove  this  cause  of 
complaint.  The  North  thinks  such  im 
prisonments  illegal  and  unconstitutional ; 
and  as  the  cases  occur  constantly  and 
frequently,  they  regard  it  as  a  great 
grievance. 

Now,  Sir,  so  far  as  any  of  these  griev 
ances  have  their  foundation  in  matters 
of  law,  they  can  be  redressed,  and  ought 
to  be  redressed ;  and  so  far  as  they  have 
their  foundation  in  matters  of  opinion, 
in  sentiment,  in  mutual  crimination  and 
recrimination,  all  that  we  can  do  is  to 
endeavor  to  allay  the  agitation,  and  cul 
tivate  a  better  feeling  and  more  fraternal 
sentiments  between  the  South  and  the 
North. 

Mr.  President,  I  should  much  prefer 
to  have  heard  from  every  member  on 
this  floor  declarations  of  opinion  that 
this  Union  could  never  be  dissolved,  than 
the  declaration  of  opinion  by  anybody, 
that,  in  any  case,  under  the  pressure  of 
any  circumstances,  such  a  dissolution 
was  possible.  I  hear  with  distress  and 
anguish  the  word  "  secession,"  espe 
cially  when  it  falls  from  the  lips  of 
those  who  are  patriotic,  and  known  to 
the  country,  and  known  all  over  the 
world,  for  their  political  services.  Se 
cession  !  Peaceable  secession !  Sir,  your 
eyes  and  mine  are  never  destined  to  see 
that  miracle.  The  dismemberment  of 
this  vast  country  without  convulsion! 
The  breaking  up  of  the  fountains  of  the 
great  deep  without  ruffling  the  surface ! 
Who  is  so  foolish,  I  beg  everybody's 
pardon,  as  to  expect  to  see  any  such 
thing?  Sir,  he  who  sees  these  States, 
now  revolving  in  harmony  around  a 
common  centre,  and  expects  to  see  them 
quit  their  places  and  fly  off  without  con 
vulsion,  may  look  the  next  hour  to  see 
the  heavenly  bodies  rush  from  their 
spheres,  and  jostle  against  each  other 
in  the  realms  of  space,  without  causing 
the  wreck  of  the  universe.  There  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  a  peaceable  seces 
sion.  Peaceable  secession  is  an  utter 


impossibility.  Is  the  great  Constitution 
under  which  we  live,  covering  this  whole 
country,  —  is  it  to  be  thawed  and  melted 
away  by  secession,  as  the  snows  on  the 
mountain  melt  under  the  influence  of  a 
vernal  sun,  disappear  almost  unobserved, 
and  run  off?  No,  Sir!  No,  Sir!  I  will 
not  state  what  might  produce  the  dis 
ruption  of  the  Union ;  but,  Sir,  I  see  as 
plainly  as  I  see  the  sun  in  heaven  what 
that  disruption  itself  must  produce;  I 
see  that  it  must  produce  war,  and  such 
a  war  as  I  will  not  describe,  in  its  twofold 
character. 

Peaceable  secession !  Peaceable  seces 
sion  !  The  concurrent  agreement  of  all 
the  members  of  this  great  republic  to 
separate!  A  voluntary  separation,  with 
alimony  on  one  side  and  on  the  other. 
Why,  what  would  be  the  result?  Where 
is  the  line  to  be  drawn?  What  States 
are  to  secede?  What  is  to  remain  Amer 
ican?  What  am  I  to  be?  An  American 
no  longer?  Am  I  to  become  a  sectional 
man,  a  local  man,  a  separatist,  with  no 
country  in  common  with  the  gentlemen 
who  sit  around  me  here,  or  who  fill  the 
other  house  of  Congress?  Heaven  for 
bid  !  Where  is  the  flag  of  the  republic 
to  remain?  Where  is  the  eagle  still  to 
tower?  or  is  he  to  cower,  and  shrink, 
and  fall  to  the  ground?  Why,  Sir,  our 
ancestors,  our  fathers  and  our  grand 
fathers,  those  of  them  that  are  yet  living 
amongst  us  with  prolonged  lives,  would 
rebuke  and  reproach  us;  and  our  chil 
dren  and  our  grandchildren  would  cry 
out  shame  upon  us,  if  we  of  this  genera 
tion  should  dishonor  these  ensigns  of  the 
power  of  the  government  and  the  har 
mony  of  that  Union  which  is  every  day 
felt  among  us  with  so  much  joy  and 
gratitude.  What  is  to  become  of  the 
army?  What  is  to  become  of  the  navy? 
What  is  to  become  of  the  public  lands? 
How  is  each  of  the  thirty  States  to  defend 
itself?  I  know,  although  the  idea  has 
not  been  stated  distinctly,  there  is  to  be, 
or  it  is  supposed  possible  that  there  will 
be,  a  Southern  Confederacy.  I  do  not 
mean,  when  I  allude  to  this  statement, 
that  any  one  seriously  contemplates  such 
a  state  of  things.'  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  it  is  true,  but  I  have  heard  it 


622 


SPEECH   OF  THE   ?TH   OF  MARCH,   1850, 


suggested  elsewhere,  that  the  idea  has 
been  entertained,  that,  after  the  dissolu 
tion  of  this  Union,  a  Southern  Confeder 
acy  might  be  formed.  I  am  sorry,  Sir, 
that  it  has  ever  been  thought  of,  talked 
of,  or  dreamed  of,  in  the  wildest  flights 
of  human  imagination.  But  the  idea, 
so  far  as  it  exists,  must  be  of  a  separa 
tion,  assigning  the  slave  States  to  one 
side  and  the  free  States  to  the  other. 
Sir,  I  may  express  myself  too  strongly, 
perhaps,  but  there  are  impossibilities  in 
the  natural  as  well  as  in  the  physical 
world,  and  I  hold  the  idea  of  a  separa 
tion  of  these  States,  those  that  are  free 
to  form  one  government,  and  those  that 
are  slave-holding  to  form  another,  as 
such  an  impossibility.  We  could  not 
separate  the  States  by  any  such  line,  if 
we  were  to  draw  it.  We  could  not  sit 
down  here  to-day  and  draw  a  line  of  sep 
aration  that  would  satisfy  any  five  men 
in  the  country.  There  are  natural  causes 
that  would  keep  and  tie  us  together,  and 
there  are  social  and  domestic  relations 
which  we  could  not  break  if  we  would, 
and  which  we  should  not  if  we  could. 

Sir,  nobody  can  look  over  the  face  of 
this  country  at  the  present  moment,  no 
body  can  see  where  its  population  is  the 
most  dense  and  growing,  without  being 
ready  to  admit,  and  compelled  to  admit, 
that  erelong  the  strength  of  America 
will  be  in  the  Valley  of  the  Mississippi. 
Well,  now,  Sir,  I  beg  to  inquire  what 
the  wildest  enthusiast  has  to  say  on  the 
possibility  of  cutting  that  river  in  two, 
and  leaving  free  States  at  its  source  and 
on  its  branches,  and  slave  States  down 
near  its  mouth,  each  forming  a  separate 
government?  Pray,  Sir,  let  me  say  to 
the  people  of  this  country,  that  these 
things  are  worthy  of  their  pondering  and 
of  their  consideration.  Here,  Sir,  are 
five  millions  of  freemen  in  the  free  States 
north  of  the  river  Ohio.  Can  anybody 
suppose  that  this  population  can  be  sev 
ered,  by  a  line  that  divides  them  from 
the  territory  of  a  foreign  and  an  alien 
government,  down  somewhere,  the  Lord 
knows  where,  upon  the  lower  banks  of 
the  Mississippi?  What  would  become 
of  Missouri  ?  Will  she  join  the  arron- 
dissement  of  the  slave  States?  Shall 


the  man  from  the  Yellowstone  and  the 
Platte  be  connected,  in  the  new  republic, 
with  the  man  who  lives  on  the  southern 
extremity^of  the  Cape  of  Florida  ?  Sir, 
I  am  ashamed  to  pursue  this  line  of  re 
mark.  I  dislike  it,  I  have  an  utter  dis 
gust  for  it.  I  would  rather  hear  of 
natural  blasts  and  mildews,  war,  pesti 
lence,  and  famine,  than  to  hear  gentle 
men  talk  of  secession.  To  break  up  this 
great  government!  to  dismember  this 
glorious  country!  to  astonish  Europe 
with  an  act  of  folly  such  as  Europe  for 
two  centuries  has  never  beheld  in  any 
government  or  any  people!  No,  Sir! 
no,  Sir!  There  will  be  no  secession! 
Gentlemen  are  not  serious  when  they 
talk  of  secession. 

Sir,  I  hear  there  is  to  be  a  convention 
held  at  Nashville.  I  am  bound  to  be 
lieve  that,  if  worthy  gentlemen  meet  at 
Nashville  in  convention,  their  object 
will  be  to  adopt  conciliatory  counsels ; 
to  advise  the  South  to  forbearance  and 
moderation,  and  to  advise  the  North  to 
forbearance  and  moderation ;  and  to  in 
culcate  principles  of  brotherly  love  and 
affection,  and  attachment  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  country  as  it  now  is.  I 
believe,  if  the  convention  meet  at  all,  it 
will  be  for  this  purpose;  for  certainly, 
if  they  meet  for  any  purpose  hostile  to 
the  Union,  they  have  been  singularly 
inappropriate  in  their  selection  of  a  place. 
I  remember,  Sir,  that,  when  the  treaty 
of  Amiens  was  concluded  between  France 
and  England,  a  sturdy  Englishman  and 
a  distinguished  orator,  who  regarded  the 
conditions  of  the  peace  as  ignominious 
to  England,  said  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  that,  if  King  William  could  know 
the  terms  of  that  treaty,  he  would  turn 
in  his  coffin!  Let  me  commend  this 
saying  of  Mr.  Windham,  in  all  its  em 
phasis  and  in  all  its  force,  to  any  per 
sons  who  shall  meet  at  Nashville  for  the 
purpose  of  concerting  measures  for  the 
overthrow  of  this  Union  over  the  bones 
of  Andrew  Jackson ! 

Sir,  I  wish  now  to  make  two  remarks, 
and  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  I  wish  to 
say,  in  regard  to  Texas,  that  if  it  should 
be  hereafter,  at  any  time,  the  pleasure 
of  the  government  of  Texas  to  cede  to 


FOR  THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION. 


623 


the  United  States  a  portion,  larger  or 
smaller,  of  her  territory  which  lies  adja 
cent  to  New  Mexico,  and  north  of  36° 
30'  of  north  latitude,  to  be  formed  into 
free  States,  for  a  fair  equivalent  in 
money  or  in  the  payment  of  her  debt, 
I  think  it  an  object  well  worthy  the  con 
sideration  of  Congress,  and  I  shall  be 
happy  to  concur  in  it  myself,  if  I  should 
have  a  connection  with  the  government 
at  that  time. 

I  have  one  other  remark  to  make.     In 
my  observations  upon  slavery  as  it  has 
existed  in  this  country,  and  as  it  now 
exists,  I  have  expressed  no  opinion  of 
the  mode  of  its  extinguishment  or  melio 
ration.     I  will  say,  however,  though  I 
have  nothing  to  propose,  because  I  do 
not  deem  myself  so  competent  as  other 
gentlemen  to  take  any  lead  on  this  sub 
ject,   that  if   any  gentleman   from   the 
South  shall  propose  a  scheme,  to  be  car 
ried  on  by  this  government  upon  a  large 
scale,  for  the  transportation  of  free  col 
ored  people  to  any  colony  or  any  place 
in  the  world,  I  should  be  quite  disposed 
to  incur  almost  any  degree  of  expense  to 
accomplish  that  object.     Nay,  Sir,  fol 
lowing  an  example  set  more  than  twenty 
years  ago  by  a  great  man,1  then  a  Sen 
ator  from  New  York,  I  wrould  return  to 
Virginia,  and  through  her  to  the  whole 
South,  the  money  received  from  the  lands 
and  territories  ceded  by  her  to  this  gov 
ernment,  for  any  such  purpose  as  to  re 
move,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  in  any 
way  to  diminish  or  deal  beneficially  with, 
the  free  colored  population  of  the  South 
ern  States.     I  have  said  that  I  honor 
Virginia  for  her  cession  of  this  territory. 
There  have  been  received  into  the  treas 
ury  of  the  United  States  eighty  millions 
of  dollars,  the  proceeds  of 'the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  ceded  by  her.     If  the 
residue  should  be  sold  at  the  same  rate, 
the  whole  aggregate  will  exceed  two  hun 
dred  millions  of  dollars.      If  Virginia 
and  the  South  see  fit  to  adopt  any  prop 
osition  to  relieve  themselves  from  the 
free  people  of  color  among  them,  or  such 
as  may  be  made  free,  they  have  my  full 
consent  that  the  government  shall  pay 
them  any  sum  of  money  out  of  the  pro- 
1  Mr.  Rufus  King. 


ceeds  of  that  cession  which  may  be  ade 
quate  to  the  purpose. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  draw  these 
observations  to  a  close.  I  have  spoken 
freely,  and  I  meant  to  do  so.  I  have 
sought  to  make  no  display.  I  have 
sought  to  enliven  the  occasion  by  no  an 
imated  discussion,  nor  have  I  attempted 
any  train  of  elaborate  argument.  I  have 
wished  only  to  speak  my  sentiments, 
fully  and  at  length,  being  desirous,  once 
and  for  all,  to  let  the  Senate  know,  and 
to  let  the  country  know,  the  opinions 
and  sentiments  wrhich  I  entertain  on  all 
these  subjects.  These  opinions  are  not 
likely  to  be  suddenly  changed.  If  there 
be  any  future  service  that  I  can  render 
to  the  country,  consistently  with  these 
sentiments  and  opinions,  I  shall  cheer 
fully  render  it.  If  there  be  not,  I  shall 
still  be  glad  to  have  had  an  opportu 
nity  to  disburden  myself  from  the  bot 
tom  of  my  heart,  and  to  make  known 
every  political  sentiment  that  therein 
exists. 

/And  now,  Mr.  President,  instead  of 
speaking  of  the  possibility  or  utility  of 
secession,  instead  of  dwelling  in  those 
caverns  of  darkness,  instead  of  groping 
with  those  ideas  so  full  of  all  that  is 
horrid  and  horrible,  let  us  come  out  into 
the  light  of  day ;  let  us  enjoy  the  fresh 
air  of  Liberty  and  Union ;  let  us  cherish 
those  hopes  which  belong  to  us ;  let  us 
devote  ourselves  to  those  great  objects 
that  are  fit  for  our  consideration  and 
our  action  ;  let  us  raise  our  conceptions 
to  the  magnitude  and  the  importance  of 
the  duties  that  devolve  upon  us ;  let  our 
comprehension  be  as  broad  as  the  coun 
try  for  wThich  we  act,  our  aspirations  as 
high  as  its  certain  destiny ;  let  us  not  be 
pygmies  in  a  case  that  calls  for  men. 
Never  did  there  devolve  on  any  genera 
tion  of  men  higher  trusts  than  now 
devolve  upon  us,  for  the  preservation  of 
this  Constitution  and  the  harmony  and 
peace  of  all  who  are  destined  to  live 
under  it.  Let  us  make  our  generation 
one  of  the  strongest  and  brightest  links 
in  that  golden  chain  which  is  destined, 
I  fondly  believe,  to  grapple  the  people  of 
all  the  States  to  this  Constitution  for 
ages  to  come.  We  have  a  great,  popu- 


624 


SPEECH   OF  THE   TTH   OF   MARCH,   1850, 


lar,  constitutional  government,  guarded 
by  law  and  by  judicature,  and  defended 
by  the  affections  of  the  whole  people. 
No  monarchical  throne  presses  these 
States  together,  no  iron  chain  of  mili 
tary  power  encircles  them ;  they  live  and 
stand  under  a  government  popular  in 
its  form,  representative  in  its  character, 
founded  upon  principles  of  equality, 
and  so  constructed,  we  hope,  as  to  last 
for  ever.  In  all  its  history  it  has  been 
beneficent;  it  has  trodden  down  no 
man's  liberty;  it  has  crushed  no  State. 
Its  daily  respiration  is  liberty  and  pa 
triotism  ;  its  yet  youthful  veins  are  full 
of  enterprise,  courage,  and  honorable 


love  of  glory  and  renown,  j  Large  be 
fore,  the  country  has  now,  by  recent 
events,  become  vastly  larger.  This  re 
public  now  extends,  with  a  vast  breadth, 
across  the  whole  continent.  The  two 
great  seas  of  the  world  wash  the  one 
and  the  other  shore.  We  realize,  on  a 
mighty  scale,  the  beautiful  description 
of  the  ornamental  border  of  the  buckler 
of  Achilles :  — 
"Now,  the  broad  shield  complete,  the  artist 

crowned  - 
With  his  last  hand,  and  poured  the  ocean 

round  ; 

In  living  silver  seemed  the  waves  to  roll, 
And  beat  the  buckler's  verge,  and  bound  the 
whole." 


NOTE. 

Page  619. 

Letter  from  Mr.  Webster  to  the  Editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  enclosing 
Extracts  front  a  Letter  of  the  late  Dr.  Channing. 


Washington,  February  15,  1851. 

MESSRS.  GALES  AND  SEATOX : — 

Having  occasion  recently  to  look  over 
some  files  of  letters  written  several  years 
ago,  I  happened  to  fall  on  one  from  the  late 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  PI  Channing.  It  contains  pas 
sages  which  I  think,  coming  from  such  a 
source,  and  written  at  such  a  time,  would 
be  interesting  to  the  country.  I  have  there 
fore  extracted  them,  and  send  them  to  you 
for  publication  in  your  columns. 
Yours  respectfully, 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Boston,  May  14, 1828. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  :  — 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  subject 
of  general  interest. 

A  little  while  ago,  Mr.  Lundy  of  Balti 
more,  the  editor  of  a  paper  called  "  The 
Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,"  visited 
tin's  part  of  the  country,  to  stir  us  up  to  the 
work  of  abolishing  slavery  at  the  South, 
and  the  intention  is  to  organize  societies  for 
this  purpose.  I  know  few  objects  into 
which  I  should  enter  with  more  zeal,  but  I 
am  aware  how  cautiously  exertions  are  to 
be  made  for  it  in  this  part  of  the  country. 
I  know  that  our  Southern  brethren  inter 
pret  every  word  from  this  region  on  the 


subject  of  slavery  as  an  expression  of  hos 
tility.  I  would  ask  if  they  cannot  be 
brought  to  understand  us  better,  and  if  we 
can  do  any  good  till  we  remove  their  mis 
apprehensions.  It  seems  to  me  that,  before 
moving  in  this  matter,  we  ought  to  say  to 
them  distinctly,  "  We  consider  slavery  as 
your  calamity,  not  your  crime,  and  we  will 
share  with  you  the  burden  of  putting  an 
end  to  it.  We  will  consent  that  the  public 
lands  shall  be  appropriated  to  this  object ; 
or  that  the  general  government  shall  be 
clothed  with  power  to  apply  a  portion  of 
revenue  to  it." 

I  throw  out  these  suggestions  merely  to 
illustrate  my  views.  We  must  first  let  the 
Southern  States  see  that  we  are  \\w\rfriends 
in  this  affair ;  that  we  sympathize  with 
them,  and,  from  principles  of  patriotism 
and  philanthropy,  are  willing  to  share  the 
toil  and  expense  of  abolishing  slavery,  or  I 
fear  our  interference  will  avail  nothing.  •  I 
am  the  more  sensitive  on  this  subject  from 
rny  increased  solicitude  for  the  preservation 
of  the  Union.  I  know  no  public  interest 
so  important  as  this.  I  ask  from  the  gen 
eral  government  hardly  any  other  boon  than 
that  it  will  hold  us  together,  and  preserve 
pacific  relations  and  intercourse  among  the 
States.  I  deprecate  every  thing  which 
sows  discord  and  exasperates  sectional 
animosities.  If  it  will  simply  keep  us  at 
peace,  and  will  maintain  in  full  power  the 


FOR  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION. 


625 


national  courts,  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
quietly  among  citizens  of  different  States 
questions  which  might  otherwise  be  settled 
by  arms,  I  shall  be  satisfied. 

My  fear  in  regard  to  our  efforts  against 
slavery  is,  that  we  shall  make  the  case 
worse  by  rousing  sectional  pride  and  pas 
sion  for  its  support,  and  that  we  shall  only 
break  the  country  into  two  great  parties, 
which  may  shake  the  foundations  of  gov 
ernment. 

I  have  written  to  you  because  your  situa 


tion  gives  you  advantages  which  perhaps 
no  other  man  enjoys  for  ascertaining  the 
method,  if  any  can  be  devised,  by  which  we 
may  operate  beneficially  and  safely  in  re 
gard  to  slavery.  Appeals  will  probably  be 
made  soon  to  the  people  here,  and  I  wish 
that  wise  men  would  save  us  from  the  rash 
ness  of  enthusiasts,  and  from  the  perils  to 
which  our  very  virtues  expose  us. 

With  great  respect,  your  friend, 

WM.  E.  CHANNING. 
.  HON.  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


40 


RECEPTION    AT    BUFFALO. 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  BEFORE  A  LARGE  ASSEMBLY  OF  THE  CITIZENS  OF 
BUFFALO  AND  THE  COUNTY  OF  ERIE,  AT  A  PUBLIC  RECEPTION  ON  THE 
22o  OF  MAY,  1851. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  THE  CITY  OF 
BUFFALO,  —  I  am  very  glad  to  see  you; 
I  meet  you  with  pleasure.  It  is  not  the 
first  time  that  I  have  been  in  Buffalo, 
and  I  have  always  come  to  it  with  grati 
fication.  It  is  at  a  great  distance  from 
my  own  home.  I  am  thankful  that  cir 
cumstances  have  enabled  me  to  be  here 
again,  and  I  regret  that  untoward  events 
deprived  me  of  the  pleasure  of  being 
with  you  when  your  distinguished  fel 
low-citizen,  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  visited  you,  and  received  from 
you,  as  he  deserved,  not  only  a  respect 
ful,  but  a  cordial  and  enthusiastic  wel 
come.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  has  been  a  resident  among  you 
for  more  than  half  his  life.  He  has 
represented  you  in  the  State  and  na 
tional  councils.  You  know  him  and 
all  his  relations,  both  public  and  pri 
vate,  and  it  would  be  bad  taste  in  me 
to  say  any  thing  of  him,  except  that  I 
wish  to  say,  with  emphasis,  that,  since 
my  connection  with  him  in  the  adminis 
tration  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  I  have  fully  concurred  with  him 
in  all  his  great  and  leading  measures. 
This  might  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  I  have  been  one  of  his  ordinary  ad 
visers.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  let  it  rest 
on  that  presumption ;  I  wish  to  declare 
that  the  principles  of  the  President,  as 
set  forth  in  his  annual  message,  his  let 
ters,  and  all  documents  and  opinions 
which  have  proceeded  from  him,  or 
been  issued  by  his  authority,  in  regard 
to  the  great  question  of  the  times,  —  all 
these  principles  are  my  principles ;  and 


if  he  is  wrong  in  them,  I  am,  and  al 
ways  shall  be. 

Gentlemen,  it  has  been  suggested  to 
me  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the 
citizens  of  Buffalo,  and  their  neighbors 
in  the  county  of  Erie,  that  I  should 
state  to  you  my  opinions,  whatever  may 
be  their  value,  on  the  present  condition 
of  the  country,  its  prospects,  its  hopes, 
and  its  dangers;  and,  fellow-citizens,  I 
intend  to  do  that,  this  day,  and  this  hour, 
as  far  as  my  strength  will  permit. 

Gentlemen,  believe  me,  I  know  where 
I  am.  I  know  to  whom  I  am  speaking. 
I  know  for  whom  I  am  speaking.  I 
know  that  I  am  here  in  this  singularly 
prosperous  and  powerful  section  of  the 
United  States,  Western  New  York,  and 
I  know  the  character  of  the  men  who 
inhabit  Western  New  York.  I  know 
they  are  sons  of  liberty,  one  and  all; 
that  they  sucked  in  liberty  with  their 
mothers'  milk;  inherited  it  with  their 
blood ;  that  it  is  the  subject  of  their  daily 
contemplation  and  watchful  thought. 
They  are  men  of  unusual  equality  of 
condition,  for  a  million  and  a  half  of 
people.  There  are  thousands  of  men 
around  us,  and  here  before  us,  who  till 
their  own  soil  with  their  own  hands; 
and  others  who  earn  their  own  liveli 
hood  by  their  own  labor  in  the  work 
shops  and  other  places  of  industry ;  and 
they  are  independent,  in  principle  and 
in  condition,  having  neither  slaves  nor 
masters,  and  not  intending  to  have 
either.  These  are  the  men  who  con 
stitute,  to  a  great  extent,  the  people  of 
Western  New  York.  But  the  school- 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


627 


house,  I  know,  is  among  them.  Educa 
tion  is  among  them.  They  read,  and 
write,  and  think.  Here,  too,  are  women, 
educated,  refined,  and  intelligent;  and 
here  are  men  who  know  the  history  of 
their  country,  and  the  laws  of  their 
country,  and  the  institutions  of  their 
country;  and  men,  lovers  of  liberty  al 
ways,  and  yet  lovers  of  liberty  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  country,  and 
who  mean  to  maintain  that  Constitu 
tion  with  all  their  strength.  I  hope 
these  observations  will  satisfy  you  that 
I  know  where  I  am,  under  what  respon 
sibility  I  speak,  and  before  whom  I  ap 
pear  ;  and  I  have  no  desire  that  any 
word  I  shall  say  this  day  shall  be  with- 
holden  from  you,  or  your  children,  or 
your  neighbors,  or  the  whole  world;  for 
I  speak  before  you  and  before  my  coun 
try,  and,  if  it  be  not  too  solemn  to 
say  so,  before  the  great  Author  of  all 
things. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  but  one  question 
in  this  country  now  ;  or,  if  there  be 
others,  they  are  but  secondary,  or  so 
subordinate  that  they  are  all  absorbed 
in  that  great  and  leading  question ;  and 
that  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  this : 
Can  we  preserve  the  union  of  the  States, 
not  by  coercion,  not  by  military  power, 
not  by  angry  controversies, — but  can 
we  of  this  generation,  you  and  I,  your 
friends  and  my  friends, — can  we  so 
preserve  the  union  of  these  States,  by 
such  administration  of  the  powers  of 
the  Constitution  as  shall  give  content 
and  satisfaction  to  all  who  live  under  it, 
and  draw  us  together,  not  by  military 
power,  but  by  the  silken  cords  of  mutual, 
fraternal,  patriotic  affection?  That  is 
the  question,  and  no  other.  Gentlemen, 
I  believe  in  party  distinctions.  I  am  a 
party  man.  There  are  questions  be 
longing  to  party  in  which  I  take  an 
interest,  and  there  are  opinions  enter 
tained  by  other  parties  which  I  repudi 
ate  ;  but  what  of  all  that?  If  a  house 
be  divided  against  itself,  it  will  fall,  and 
crush  everybody  in  it.  We  must  see 
that  we  maintain  the  government  which 
is  over  us.  "We  must  see  that  we  up 
hold  the  Constitution,  and  we  must  do 
so  without  regard  to  party. 


Now  how  did  this  question  arise? 
The  question  is  for  ever  misstated.  I 
dare  say,  if  you  know  much  of  me,  or 
of  my  course  of  public  conduct,  for  the 
last  fourteen  months,  you  have  heard  of 
my  attending  Union  meetings,  and  of 
my  fervent  admonitions  at  Union  meet 
ings.  Well,  what  wras  the  object  of 
those  meetings?  What  was  their  pur 
pose?  The  object  and  purpose  have 
been  designedly  or  thoughtlessly  mis 
represented.  I  had  an  invitation,  some 
time  since,  to  attend  a  Union  meeting 
in  the  county  of  Westchester;  I  could 
not  go,  but  wrote  a  letter.  Well,  some 
wise  man  of  the  East  said  he  did  not 
think  it  was  very  necessary  to  hold 
Union  meetings  in  Westchester.  He 
did  not  think  there  were  many  dis- 
unionists  about  Tarrytown !  And  so  in 
many  parts  of  the  country,  there  is  a 
total  misapprehension  of  the  purpose 
and  object  of  these  Union  meetings. 
Every  one  knows,  that  there  is  not  a 
county,  or  a  city,  or  a  hamlet  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  that  is  ready  to  go 
out  of  the  Union,  but  only  some  small 
bodies  of  fanatics.  There  is  no  man  so 
insane  in  the  State,  not  fit  for  a  lunatic 
asylum,  as  to  wish  it.  But  that  is  not 
the  point.  We  all  know  that  every  man 
and  every  neighborhood,  and  all  cor 
porations,  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
except  those  I  have  mentioned,  are  at 
tached  to  the  Union,  and  have  no  idea 
of  withdrawing  from  it.  But  that  is 
not,  I  repeat,  the  point.  The  question, 
fellow-citizens,  (and  I  put  it  to  you  now 
as  the  real  question,)  the  question  is, 
"Whether  you  and  the  rest  of  the  people 
of  the  great  State  of  New  York,  and  of 
all  the  States,  will  so  adhere  to  the  Con 
stitution,  will  so  enact  and  maintain 
laws  to  preserve  that  instrument,  that 
you  will  not  only  remain  in  the  Union 
yourselves,  but  permit  your  brethren  to 
remain  in  it,  and  help  to  perpetuate  it? 
That  is  the  question.  Will  you  concur 
in  measures  necessary  to  maintain  the 
Union,  or  will  you  oppose  such  meas 
ures?  That  is  the  whole  point  of  the 
case. 

There  are  thirty  or  forty  members  of 
Congress  from  New  York;  you  have 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


your  proportion  in  the  United  States 
Senate.  We  have  many  members  of 
Congress  from  New  England.  Will  they 
maintain  the  laws  that  are  passed  for 
the  administration  of  the  Constitution, 
and  respect  the  rights  of  the  South,  so 
that  the  Union  may  be  held  together; 
and  not  only  so  that  we  may  not  go  out 
of  it  ourselves,  which  we  are  not  in 
clined  to  do,  but  so  that,  by  maintaining 
the  rights  of  others,  they  may  also  re 
main  in  the  Union?  Now,  Gentlemen, 
permit  me  to  say,  that  I  speak  of  no 
concessions.  If  the  South  wish  any  con 
cession  from  me,  they  will  not  get  it»; 
not  a  hair's  breadth  of  it.  If  they  come 
to  my  house  for  it,  they  will  not  find  it, 
and  the  door  will  be  shut;  I  concede 
nothing.  But  I  say  that  I  will  maintain 
for  them,  as  I  will  maintain  for  you,  to 
the  utmost  of  my  power,  and  in  the  face 
of  all  danger,  their  rights  under  the 
Constitution,  and  your  rights  under  the 
Constitution.  And  I  shall  never  be 
found  to  falter  in  one  or  the  other.  It 
is  obvious  to  every  one,  and  we  all  know 
it,  that  the  origin  of  the  great  disturb 
ance  which  agitates  the  country  is  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  some  of  the  States ; 
but  we  must  meet  the  subject;  we  must 
consider  it;  we  must  deal  with  it  ear 
nestly,  honestly,  and  justly.  From  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  John's  to  the  confines 
of  Florida,  there  existed,  in  1775,  thir 
teen  colonies  of  English  origin,  planted 
at  different  times,  and  coming  from  dif 
ferent  parts  of  England,  bringing  with 
them  various  habits,  and  establishing, 
each  for  itself,  institutions  entirely  dif 
ferent  from  the  institutions  which  they 
left,  and  in  many  cases  from  each  other. 
But  they  were  all  of  English  origin. 
The  English  language  was  theirs,  Shak- 
speare  and  Milton  were  theirs,  the  com 
mon  law  of  England  was  theirs,  and  the 
Christian  religion  was  theirs;  and  these 
tilings  held  them  together  by  the  force 
of  a  common  character.  The  aggres 
sions  of  the  parent  state  compelled  them 
to  assert  their  independence.  They  de 
clared  independence,  and  that  immortal 
act,  pronounced  on  the  4th  of  July,  1776, 
made  them  independent. 

That  was    an   act  of    union  by  the 


United  States  in  Congress  assembled. 
But  this  act  of  itself  did  nothing  to  es 
tablish  over  them  a  general  government. 
They  had»a  Congress.  They  had  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation  to  prosecute  the 
war.  But  thus  far  they  were  still,  es 
sentially,  separate  and  independent  each 
of  the  other.  They  had  entered  into  a 
simple  confederacy,  and  nothing  more. 
No  State  was  bound  by  what  it  did  not 
itself  agree  to,  or  what  was  done  accord 
ing  to  the  provisions  of  the  confedera 
tion.  That  was  the  state  of  things, 
Gentlemen,  at  that  time.  The  war  went 
on ;  victory  crowned  the  American  arms ; 
our  independence  was  acknowledged. 
The  States  were  then  united  together 
under  a  confederacy  of  very  limited  pow 
ers.  It  could  levy  no  taxes.  It  could 
not  enforce  its  own  decrees.  It  was  a 
confederacy,  instead  of  a  united  govern 
ment.  Experience  showed  that  this 
was  insufficient  and  inefficient.  Accord 
ingly,  beginning  as  far  back  almost  as 
the  close  of  the  war,  measures  were 
taken  for  the  formation  of  a  united  gov 
ernment,  a  government  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  term,  a  government  that  could 
pass  laws  binding  on  the  individual  citi 
zens  of  all  the  States,  and  which  could 
enforce  those  laws  by  its  executive  pow 
ers,  having  them  interpreted  by  a  judicial 
power  belonging  to  the  government  it 
self,  and  yet  a  government  strictly  lim 
ited  in  its  nature.  Well,  Gentlemen, 
this  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
instrument  was  framed  on  the  idea  of 
a  limited  government.  It  proposed  to 
leave,  and  did  leave,  the  different  domes 
tic  institutions  of  the  several  States  to 
themselves.  It  did  not  propose  consoli 
dation.  It  did  not  propose  that  the  laws 
of  Virginia  should  be  the  laws  of  New 
York,  or  that  the  laws  of  New  York 
should  be  the  laws  of  Massachusetts.  It 
proposed  only  that,  for  certain  purposes 
and  to  a  certain  extent,  there  should  be 
a  united  government,  and  that  that  gov 
ernment  should  have  the  power  of  exe 
cuting  its  own  laws.  All  the  rest  was 
left  to  the  several  Slates. 

We  now  come,  Gentlemen,  to  the  very 
point  of  the  case.     At  that  time  slavery 


RECEPTION  AT   BUFFALO. 


629 


existed  in  the  Southern  States,  entailed 
upon  them  in  the  time  of  the  supremacy 
of  British  laws  over  us.  There  it  was. 
It  was  obnoxious  to  the  Middle  and 
Eastern  States,  and  honestly  and  seri 
ously  disliked,  as  the  records  of  the 
country  will  show,  by  the  Southern  States 
themselves.  Now,  how  was  it  to  be  dealt 
with?  Were  the  Northern  and  Middle 
States  to  exclude  from  the  government 
those  States  of  the  South  which  had  pro 
duced  a  Washington,  a  Laurens,  and 
other  distinguished  patriots,  who  had  so 
truly  served,  and  so  greatly  honored,  the 
whole  country?  Were  they  to  be  ex 
cluded  from  the  new  government  be 
cause  they  tolerated  the  institution  of 
slavery?  Your  fathers  and  my  fathers 
did  not  think  so.  They  did  not  see  that 
it  would  be  of  the  least  advantage  to  the 
slaves  of  the  Southern  States,  to  cut  off 
the  South  from  all  connection  with  the 
North.  Their  views  of  humanity  led  to 
no  such  result;  and  of  course,  when  the 
Constitution  was  framed  and  estab 
lished,  and  adopted  by  you,  here  in  New 
York,  and  by  New  England,  it  con 
tained  an  express  provision  of  security 
to  the  persons  who  lived  in  the  Southern 
States,  in  regard  to  fugitives  who  owed 
them  service ;  that  is  to  say,  it  was  stipu 
lated  that  the  fugitive  from  service  or 
labor  should  be  restored  to  his  master 
or  owner  if  he  escaped  into  a  free  State. 
Well,  that  had  been  the  history  of  the 
country  from  its  first  settlement.  It  was 
a  matter  of  common  practice  to  return 
fugitives  before  the  Constitution  was 
formed.  Fugitive  slaves  from  Virginia 
to  Massachusetts  were  restored  by  the 
people  of  Massachusetts.  At  that  day 
there  was  a  great  system  of  apprentice 
ship  at  the  North,  and  many  apprentices 
at  the  North,  taking  advantage  of  cir 
cumstances,  and  of  vessels  sailing  to  the 
South,  thereby  escaped;  and  they  were 
restored  on  proper  claim  and  proof. 
That  led  to  a  clear,  express,  and  well- 
defined  provision  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  country  on  the  subject.  Now  I  am 
aware  that  all  these  things  are  well 
known;  that  they  have  been  stated  a 
thousand  times;  but  in  these  days  of 
perpetual  discontent  and  misrepresenta 


tion,  to  state  things  a  thousand  times  is 
not  enough ;  for  there  are  persons  whose 
consciences,  it  would  seem,  lead  them 
to  consider  it  their  duty  to  deny,  mis 
represent,  falsify,  and  cover  up  truths. 
Now  these  are  words  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  fellow-citizens,  which  I  have  taken 
the  pains  to  transcribe  therefrom,  so  that 
he  who  runs  may  read :  — 

"NO  PERSON  HELD  TO  SERVICE  OR 
LABOR  IN  ONE  STATE,  UNDER  THE  LAWS 
THEREOF,  ESCAPING  INTO  ANOTHER, 
SHALL,  IN  CONSEQUENCE  OF  ANY  LAW 
OR  REGULATION  THEREIN,  BE  DIS 
CHARGED  FROM  SUCH  SERVICE  OR  LA 
BOR,  BUT  SHALL  BE  DELIVERED  UP  ON 
CLAIM  OF  THE  PARTY  TO  WHOM  SUCH 
SERVICE  OR  LABOR  MAY  BE  DUE." 

Is  there  any  mistake  about  that?  Is 
there  any  forty-shilling  attorney  here  to 
make  a  question  of  it?  No.  I  will  not 
disgrace  my  profession  by  supposing 
such  a  thing.  There  is  not,  in  or  out 
of  an  attorney's  office  in  the  county  of 
Erie,  or  elsewhere,  one  who  could  raise 
a  doubt,  or  a  particle  of  a  doubt,  about 
the  meaning  of  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution.  He  may  act  as  witnesses 
do,  sometimes,  on  the  stand.  He  may 
wriggle,  and  twist,  and  say  he  cannot 
tell,  or  cannot  remember.  I  have  seen 
many  such  efforts  in  my  time,  on  the 
part  of  witnesses,  to  falsify  and  deny 
the  truth.  But  there  is  no  man  who 
can  read  these  words  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  say  they 
are  not  clear  and  imperative.  "  No  per 
son,"  the  Constitution  says,  "held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the 
laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall, 
in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service 
or  labor  may  be  due."  Why,  you  may 
be  told  by  forty  conventions  in  Massa 
chusetts,  in  Ohio,  in  New  York,  or  else 
where,  that,  if  a  colored  man  comes 
here,  he  comes  as  a  freeman ;  that  is  a 
non  sequitur.  It  is  not  so.  If  he  comes 
as  a  fugitive  from  labor,  the  Constitu 
tion  says  he  is  not  a  freeman,  and  that 
he  shall  be  delivered  up  to  those  who 
are  entitled  to  his  service. 


630 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


Gentlemen,  that  is  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  Do  we,  or  do  we 
not,  mean  to  conform  to  it,  and  to  exe 
cute  that  part  of  the  Constitution  as  well 
as  the  rest  of  it?  I  believe  there  are 
before  me  here  members  of  Congress.  I 
suppose  there  may  be  here  members  of 
the  State  legislature,  or  executive  officers 
under  the  State  government.  I  suppose 
there  may  be  judicial  magistrates  of 
New  York,  executive  officers,  assessors, 
supervisors,  justices  of  the  peace,  and 
constables  before  me.  Allow  me  to  say, 
Gentlemen,  that  there  is  not,  that  there 
cannot  be,  any  one  of  these  officers  in 
this  assemblage,  or  elsewhere,  who  has 
not,  according  to  the  form  of  the  usual 
obligation,  bound  himself  by  a  solemn 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution.  They 
have  taken  their  oaths  on  the  Holy 
Evangelists  of  Almighty  God,  or  by  up 
lifted  hand,  as  the  case  may  be,  or  by  a 
solemn  affirmation,  as  is  the  practice  in 
some  cases ;  but  among  all  of  them  there 
is  not  a  man  who  holds,  nor  is  there  any 
man  who  can  hold,  any  office  in  the  gift 
of  the  United  States,  or  of  this  State,  or 
of  any  other  State,  who  does  not  bind 
himself,  by  the  solemn  obligation  of  an 
oath,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Well,  is  he  to  tamper 
with  that?  Is  he  to  palter?  Gentle 
men,  our  political  duties  are  as  much 
matters  of  conscience  as  any  other  duties ; 
our  sacred  domestic  ties,  our  most  en 
dearing  social  relations,  are  no  more  the 
subjects  for  conscientious  consideration 
and  conscientious  discharge,  than  the 
duties  we  enter  upon  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  The  bonds 
of  political  brotherhood,  wrhich  hold  us 
together  from  Maine  to  Georgia,  rest 
upon  the  same  principles  of  obligation 
as  those  of  domestic  and  social  life. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  that  is  the  plain 
story  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  question  of  slavery.  I 
contend,  and  have  always  contended, 
that,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  any  measure  of  the  government 
calculated  to  bring  more  slave  territory 
into  the  United  States  was  beyond  the 
power  of  the  Constitution,  and  against 
its  provisions.  That  is  my  opinion,  and 


it  always  has  been  my  opinion.  It  was 
inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  thought  to  be  so,  in 
Mr.  Jefferson's  time,  to  attach  Louisiana 
to  the  United  States.  A  treaty  with 
France  was  made  for  that  purpose. 
Mr.  Jefferson's  opinion  at  that  moment 
was,  that  an  alteration  of  the  Constitu 
tion  was  necessary  to  enable  it  to  be 
done.  In  consequence  of  considerations 
to  which  I  need  not  now  refer,  that 
opinion  was  abandoned,  and  Louisiana 
was  admitted  by  law,  without  any  pro 
vision  in,  or  alteration  of,  the  Constitu 
tion.  At  that  time  I  was  too  young  to 
hold  any  office,  or  take  any  share  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  country.  Louisi 
ana  was  admitted  as  a  slave  State,  and 
became  entitled  to  her  representation  in 
Congress  on  the  principle  of  a  mixed 
basis.  Florida  was  afterwards  admit 
ted.  Then,  too,  I  was  out  of  Congress. 
I  had  formerly  been  a  member,  but  had 
ceased  to  be  -so.  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Florida  treaty,  or  the  admis 
sion  of  Florida.  My  opinion  remains 
unchanged,  that  it  was  not  within  the 
original  scope  or  design  of  the  Constitu 
tion  to  admit  new  States  out  of  foreign 
territory;  and,  for  one,  whatever  may 
be  said  at  the  Syracuse  Convention,  or 
at  any  other  assemblage  of  insane  per 
sons,  I  never  would  consent,  and  never 
have  consented,  that  there  should  be  one 
foot  of  slave  territory  beyond  what  the 
old  thirteen  States  had  at  the  time  of 
the  formation  of  the  Union.  Never, 
never!  The  man  cannot  show  his  face 
to  me,  and  say  he  can  prove  that  I  ever 
departed  from  that  doctrine.  lie  would 
sneak  away,  and  slink  away,  or  hire  a 
mercenary  press  to  cry  out,  What  an 
apostate  from  liberty  Daniel  Webster 
has  become !  But  he  knows  himself  to 
be  a  hypocrite  and  a  falsifier. 

But,  Gentlemen,  I  was  in  public  life 
when  the  proposition  to  annex  Texas  to 
the  United  States  was  brought  forward. 
You  know  that  the  revolution  in  Texas, 
which  separated  that  country  from  Mex 
ico,  occurred  in  the  year  1835  or  1836. 
I  saw  then,  and  I  do  not  know  that  it 
required  any  particular  foresight,  that 
it  would  be  the  very  next  thing  to  bring 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


631 


Texas,  which  was  designed  to  be  a  slave- 
holding  State,  into  this  Union. -  I  did 
not  wait.  I  sought  an  occasion  to  pro 
claim  my  utter  aversion  to  any  such 
measure,  and  I  determined  to  resist  it 
with  all  my  strength  to  the  last.  On 
this  subject,  Gentlemen,  you  will  bear 
with  me,  if  I  now  repeat,  in  the  pres 
ence  of  this  assembly,  what  I  have  be 
fore  spoken  elsewhere.  I  was  in  this 
city  in  the  year  1837,  and,  some  time 
before  I  left  New  York  on  that  excur 
sion  from  which  I  returned  to  this  place, 
my  friends  in  New  York  were  kind 
enough  to  offer  me  a  public  dinner  as  a 
testimony  of  their  regard.  I  went  out 
of  my  way,  -in  a  speech  delivered  in 
Niblo's  Saloon,  on  that  occasion,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  I  antici 
pated  the  attempt  to  annex  Texas  as  a 
slave  territory,  and  said  it  should  be 
opposed  by  me  to  the  last  extremity. 
Well,  there  was  the  press  all  around 
me,  —  the  Whig  press  and  the  Demo 
cratic  press.  Some  spoke  in  terms  com 
mendatory  enough  of  my  speech,  but  all 
agreed  that  I  took  pains  to  step  out  of 
my  way  to  denounce  in  advance  the 
annexation  of  Texas  as  slave  territory 
to  the  United  States.  I  said  on  that 
occasion :  — 

"  Gentlemen,  we  all  see  that,  by  whomso 
ever  possessed,  Texas  is  likely  to  be  a  slave- 
holding  country ;  and  I  frankly  avow  my 
entire  unwillingness  to  do  any  thing  that 
shall  extend  the  slavery  of  the  African 
race  on  this  continent,  or  add  other  slave- 
holding  States  to  the  Union.  When  I  say 
that  I  regard  slavery  in  itself  as  a  great 
moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  I  only  use 
language  which  has  been  adopted  by  dis 
tinguished  men,  themselves  citizens  of 
slave-holding  States.  I  shall  do  nothing, 
therefore,  to  favor  or  encourage  its  fur 
ther  extension.  We  have  slavery  already 
amongst  us.  The  Constitution  found  it  in 
the  Union ;  it  recognized  it,  and  gave  it  sol 
emn  guaranties.  To  the  full  extent  of 
these  guaranties  we  are  all  bound,  in  honor, 
in  justice,  and  by  the  Constitution.  All  the 
stipulations  contained  in  the  Constitution 
in  favor  of  the  slave-holding  States  which 
are  already  in  the  Union  ought  to  be  ful 
filled,  and,  so  far  as  depends  on  me,  shall 
be  fulfilled,  in  the  fulness  of  their  spirit 
and  to  the  exactness  of  their  letter.  Sla 


very,  as  it  exists  in  the  States,  is  beyond 
the  reach  of  Congress.  It  is  a  concern  of 
the  States  themselves ;  they  have  never 
submitted  it  to  Congress,  and  Congress  has 
no  rightful  power  over  it.  I  shall  concur, 
therefore,  in  no  act,  no  measure,  no  menace, 
no  indication  of  purpose,  which  shall  inter 
fere  or  threaten  to  interfere  with  the  exclu 
sive  authority  of  the  several  States  over  the 
subject  of  slavery  as  it  exists  within  their 
respective  limits.  All  this  appears  to  me 
to  be  matter  of  plain  and  imperative  duty. 
But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  admitting 
new  States,  the  subject  assumes  an  entirely 
different  aspect.  Our  rights  and  our  duties 
are  then  both  different.  The  free  States, 
and  all  the  States,  are  then  at  liberty  to 
accept  or  to  reject.  When  it  is  proposed  to 
bring  new  members  into  this  political  part 
nership,  the  old  members  have  a  right  to 
say  on  what  terms  such  new  partners  are 
to  come  in,  and  what  they  are  to  bring  along 
with  them.  In  my  opinion,  the  people  of 
the  United  States  will  not  consent  to  bring 
into  the  Union  a  new,  vastly  extensive,  and' 
slave-holding  country,  large  enough  for  half 
a  dozen  or  a  dozen  States.  In  my  opinion, 
they  ought  not  to  consent  to  it." 

Gentlemen,  I  was  mistaken  ;  Congress 
did  consent  to  the  bringing  in  of  Texas. 
They  did  consent,  and  I  was  a  false 
prophet.  Your  own  State  consented, 
and  the  majority  of  the  representatives 
of  New  York  consented.  I  went  into 
Congress  before  the  final  consummation 
of  the  deed,  and  there  I  fought,  holding 
up  both  my  hands,  and  urging,  with  a 
voice  stronger  than  it  now  is,  my  remon 
strances  against  the  whole  of  it.  But 
you  would  have  it  so,  and  you  did  have 
it  so.  Nay,  Gentlemen,  I  will  tell  the 
truth,  whether  it  shames  the  Devil  or 
not.  Persons  who  have  aspired  high  as 
lovers  of  liberty,  as  eminent  lovers  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  as  eminent  Free 
Soil  men,  and  who  have  mounted  over 
our  heads,  and  trodden  us  down  as  if  we 
were  mere  slaves,  insisting  that  they  are 
the  only  true  lovers  of  liberty,  they  are 
the  men,  the  very  men,  that  brought 
Texas  into  this  Union.  This  is  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  and  I  declare  it  before  you, 
this  day.  Look  to  the  journals.  With 
out  the  consent  of  New  York,  Texas 
would  not  have  come  into  the  Union, 


632 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


either  under  the  original  resolutions  or 
afterwards.  But  New  York  voted  for 
the  measure.  The  two  Senators  from 
New  York  voted  for  it,  and  decided  the 
question ;  and  you  may  thank  them  for 
the  glory,  the  renown,  and  the  happi 
ness  of  having  five  or  six  slave  States 
added  to  the  Union.  Do  not  blame  me 
for  it.  Let  them  answer  who  did  the 
deed,  and  who  are  .now  proclaiming 
themselves  the  champions  of  liberty, 
crying  up  their  Free  Soil  creed,  and 
using  it  for  selfish  and  deceptive  pur 
poses.  They  were  the  persons  who  aided 
in  bringing  in  Texas.  It  was  all  fairly 
told  to  you,  both  beforehand  and  after 
wards.  You  heard  Moses  and  the  proph 
ets,  but  if  one  had  risen  from  the  dead, 
such  was  your  devotion  to  that  policy,  at 
that  time,  you  would  not  have  listened  to 
him  for  a  moment.  I  do  not,  of  course, 
speak  of  the  persons  now  here  before 
me,  but  of  the  general  political  tone  in 
New  York,  and  especially  of  those  who 
are  now  Free  Soil  apostles.  Well,  all 
that  I  do  not  complain  of ;  but  I  will  not 
now,  or  hereafter,  before  the  country, 
or  the  world,  consent  to  be  numbered 
among  those  who  introduced  new  slave 
power  into  the  Union.  I  did  all  in  my 
power  to  prevent  it. 

Then,  again,  Gentlemen,  the  Mexican 
war  broke  out.  Vast  territory  was  ac 
quired,  and  the  peace  was  made;  and, 
much  as  I  disliked  the  war,  I  disliked 
the  peace  more,  because  it  brought  in 
these  territories.  I  wished  for  peace 
indeed,  but  I  desired  to  strike  out  the 
grant  of  territory  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  payment  of  the  $12,000,000  on  the 
other.  That  territory  was  unknown  to 
me ;  I  could  not  tell  what  its  character 
might  be.  The  plan  came  from  the 
South.  I  knew  that  certain  Southern 
gentlemen  wished  the  acquisition  of 
California,  New  Mexico,  and  Utah,  as 
a  means  of  extending  slave  power  and 
slave  population.  Foreseeing  a  sectional 
controversy,  and,  as  I  conceived,  seeing 
how  much  it  would  distract  the  Union, 
I  voted  against  the  treaty  with  Mexico. 
I  voted  against  the  acquisition.  I  wanted 
none  of  her  territory,  neither  California, 
New  Mexico,  nor  Utah.  They  were 


rather  ultra- American,  as  I  thought. 
They  were  far  from  us,  and  I  saw  that 
they  might  lead  to  a  political  conflict, 
and  I  voted  against  them  all,  against 
the  treaty  and  against  the  peace,  rather 
than  have  the  territories.  Seeing  that 
it  would  be  an  occasion  of  dispute,  that 
by  the  controversy  the  whole  Union 
would  be  agitated,  Messrs.  Berrien, 
Badger,  and  other  respectable  and  dis 
tinguished  men  of  the  South,  voted 
against  the  acquisition,  and  the  treaty 
which  secured  it;  and  if  the  men  of  the 
North  had'  voted  the  same  way,  we 
should  have  been  spared  all  the  difficul 
ties  that  have  grown  out  of  it.  We 
should  have  had  peace  without  the  ter 
ritories. 

Now  there  is  no  sort  of  doubt,  Gen 
tlemen,  that  there  were  some  persons  in 
the  South  who  supposed  that  California, 
if  it  came  into  the  Union  at  all,  would 
come  in  as  a  slave  State.  You  know 
the  extraordinary  events  which  imme 
diately  occurred,  and  the  impulse  given 
to  emigration  by  the  discovery  of  gold. 
You  know  that  crowds  of  Northern  peo 
ple  immediately  rushed  to  California, 
and  that  an  African  slave  could  no  more 
live  there  among  them,  than  he  could 
lire  on  the  top  of  Mount  Hecla.  Of 
necessity  it  became  a  free  State,  and 
that,  no  doubt,  was  a  source  of  much 
disappointment  to  the  South.  And  then 
there  were  New  Mexico  and  Utah ;  what 
was  to  be  done  with  them?  Why,  Gen 
tlemen,  from  the  best  investigation  I  had 
given  to  the  subject,  and  the  reflection 
I  had  devoted  to  it,  I  was  of  the  opinion 
that  the  mountains  of  New  Mexico  and 
Utah  could  no  more  sustain  American 
slavery  than  the  snows  of  Canada.  I 
saw  it  was  impossible.  I  thought  so 
then;  it  is  quite  evident  now.  There 
fore,  when  it  was  proposed  in  Congress 
to  apply  the  Wilinot  Proviso  to  New 
Mexico  and  Utah,  it  appeared  to  me 
just  as  absurd  as  to  apply  it  here  in 
Western  New  York.  I  saw  that  the 
snow-capped  hills,  the  eternal  moun 
tains,  and  the  climate  of  those  countries 
would  never  support  slavery.  No  man 
could  carry  a  slave  there  with  any  ex 
pectation  of  profit.  It  could  not  be 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


633 


done;  and  as  the  South  regarded  the 
Proviso  as  merely  a  source  of  irritation, 
and  as  designed  by  some  to  irritate,  I 
thought  it  unwise  to  apply  it  to  New 
Mexico  or  Utah.  I  voted  accordingly, 
and  who  doubts  now  the  correctness  of 
that  vote?  The  law  admitting  those 
territories  passed  without  any  proviso. 
Is  there  a  slave,  or  will  there  ever 
be  one,  in  either  of  those  territories? 
Why,  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  United 
States  so  stupid  as  not  to  see,  at  this 
moment,  that  such  a  thing  was  wholly 
unnecessary,  and  that  it  was 'only  calcu 
lated  to  irritate  and  to  offend.  I  am 
not  one  who  is  disposed  to  create  irrita 
tion,  or  give  offence  among  brethren,  or 
to  break  up  fraternal  friendship,  with 
out  cause.  The  question  was  accord 
ingly  left  legally  open,  whether  slavery 
should  or  should  not  go  to  New  Mexico 
or  Utah.  There  is  no  slavery  there,  it 
is  utterly  impracticable  that  it  should 
be  introduced  into  such  a  region,  and 
utterly  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  it 
could  exist  there.  No  one,  who  does 
not  mean  to  deceive,  will  now  pretend 
it  can  exist  there. 

Well,  Gentlemen,  we  have  a  race  of 
agitators  all  over  the  country;  some 
connected  with  the  press,  some,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  belonging  to  the  learned 
professions.  They  agitate;  their  liveli 
hood  consists  in  agitating;  their  free 
hold,  their  copyhold,  their  capital,  their 
all  in  all,  depend  on  the  excitement 
of  the  public  mind.  The  events  now 
briefly  alluded  to  were  going  on  at  the 
commencement  of  the  year  1850.  There 
were  two  great  questions  before  the 
public.  There  was  the  question  of  the 
Texan  boundary,  and  of  a  government 
for  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  which  I 
consider  as  one  question  ;  and  there 
was  the  question  of  making  a  provision 
for  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves. 
On  these  subjects,  I  have  something  to 
say.  Texas,  as  you  know,  established 
her  independence  of  Mexico  by-  her 
revolution  and  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto, 
which  made  her  a  sovereign  power.  I 
have  already  stated  to  you  what  I  then 
anticipated  from  the  movement,  namely, 
that  she  would  ask  to  come  into  the 


Union  as  a  slave  State.  We  admitted 
her  in  1845,  and  we  admitted  her  as  a 
slave  State.  We  admitted  her  also  with 
an  undefined  boundary ;  remember  that. 
She  claimed  by  conquest  the  whole 
of  that  territory  commonly  called  New 
Mexico,  east  of  the  Rio  Grande.  She 
claimed  also  those  limits  which  her  con 
stitution  had  declared  and  marked  out 
as  the  proper  limits  of  Texas.  This 
was  her  claim,  and  when  she  was  ad 
mitted  into  the  United  States,  the  Unit 
ed  States  did  not  define  her  territory. 
They  admitted  her  as  she  was.  We 
took  her  as  she  defined  her  own  limits, 
and  with  the  power  of  making  four  ad 
ditional  slave  States.  I  say  "  we,"  but 
I  do  not  mean  that  I  was  one ;  I  mean 
the  United  States  admitted  her. 

What,  then,  was  the  state  of  things 
in  1850?  There  was  Texas  claiming 
all,  or  a  great  part,  of  that  which  the 
United  States  had  acquired  from  Mex 
ico  as  New  Mexico.  She  claimed  that 
it  belonged  to  her  by  conquest  and  by 
her  admission  into  the  United  States, 
and  she  was  ready  to  maintain  her  claim 
by  force  of  arms.  Nor  was  this  all.  A 
man  must  be  ignorant  of  the  history  of 
the  country  who  does  not  know,  that,  at 
the  commencement  of  1850,  there  was 
great  agitation  throughout  the  whole 
South.  Who  does  'not  know  that  six 
or  seven  of  the  largest  States  of  the 
South  had  already  taken  measures  look 
ing  toward  secession;  were  preparing 
for  disunion  in  some  way?  They  con 
curred  apparently,  at  least  some  of 
them,  with  Texas,  while  Texas  was 
prepared  or  preparing  to  enforce  her 
rights  by  force  of  arms.  Troops  were 
enlisted  by  her,  and  many  thousand 
persons  in  the  South  disaffected  towards 
the  Union,  or  desirous  of  breaking  it  up, 
were  ready  to  make  common  cause  with 
Texas ;  to  join  her  ranks,  and  see  what 
they  could  make  in  a  war  to  establish 
the  right  of  Texas  to  New  Mexico. 
The  public  mind  was  disturbed.  A 
considerable  part  of  the  South  was  dis 
affected  towards  the  Union,  and  in  a 
condition  to  adopt  any  course  that  should 
be  violent  and  destructive. 

What  then  was  to  be  done,  as  far  as 


634 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


Texas  was  concerned?  Allow  me  to 
say,  Gentlemen,  there  are  two  sorts  of 
foresight.  There  is  a  military  foresight, 
which  sees  what  will  be  the  result  of 
an  appeal  to  arms;  and  there  is  also  a 
statesmanlike  foresight,  which  looks  not 
to  the  result  of  battles  and  carnage,  but 
to  the  results  of  political  disturbances, 
the  violence  of  faction  carried  into  mili 
tary  operations,  and  the  horrors  attend 
ant  on  civil  war.  I  never  had  a  doubt, 
that,  if  the  administration  of  General 
Taylor  had  gone  to  war,  and  had  sent 
troops  into  New  Mexico,  the  Texan 
forces  would  have  been  subdued  in  a 
week.  The  power  on  one  side  was 
far  superior  to  all  the  power  on  the 
other.  But  what  then?  What  if  Texan 
troops,  assisted  by  thousands  of  volun 
teers  from  the  disaffected  States,  had 
gone  to  New  Mexico,  and  had  been  de 
feated  and  turned  back?  Would  that 
have  settled  the  boundary  question? 
Now,  Gentlemen,  I  wish  I  had  ten 
thousand  voices.  I  wish  I  could  draw 
around  me  the  whole  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  I  wish  I  could  make 
them  all  hear  what  I  now  declare  on  my 
conscience  as  my  solemn  belief,  before 
the  Power  who  sits  on  high,  and  who 
will  judge  you  and  me  hereafter,  that, 
if  this  Texan  controversy  had  not  been 
settled  by  Congress  in  the  manner  it 
was,  by  the  so-called  adjustment  meas 
ures,  civil  war  would  have  ensued; 
blood,  American  blood,  would  have  been 
shed ;  and  who  can  tell  what  would  have 
been  the  consequences?  Gentlemen,  in 
an  honorable  war,  if  a  foreign  foe  in 
vade  us,  if  our  rights  are  threatened,  if 
it  be  necessary  to  defend  them  by  arms, 
I  am  not  afraid  of  blood.  And  if  I  am 
too  old  myself,  I  hope  there  are  those 
connected  with  me  by  ties  of  relation 
ship  who  are  young,  and  willing  to  de 
fend  their  country  to  the  last  drop  of 
their  blood.  But  I  cannot  express  the 
horror  I  feel  at  the  shedding  of  blood 
in  a  controversy  between  one  of  these 
States  and  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  because  I  see  in  it  a  total  and 
entire  disruption  of  all  those  ties  that 
make  us  a  great  and  happy  people. 
Gentlemen,  this  was  the  great  question, 


the  leading  question,  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  year  1850. 

Then  there  was  the  other  matter,  and 
that  was  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Let 
me  say  a  word  about  that.  Under  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  during 
Washington's  administration,  in  the 
year  1793,  there  was  passed,  by  general 
consent,  a  law  for  the  restoration  of 
fugitive  slaves.  Hardly  any  one  op 
posed  it  at  that  period ;  it  was  thought 
to  be  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  the 
Constitution  into  effect;  the  great  men 
of  New  England  and  New  York  all  con 
curred  in  it.  It  passed,  and  answered 
all  the  purposes  expected  from  it,  till 
about  the  year  1811  or  1842,  when  the 
States  interfered  to  make  enactments  in 
opposition  to  it.  The  act  of  Congress 
said  that  State  magistrates  might  exe 
cute  the  duties  of  the  law.  Some  of  the 
States  passed  enactments  imposing  a 
penalty  on  any  State  officers  who  exer 
cised  authority  under  the  law,  or  assisted 
in  its  execution ;  others  denied  the  use 
of  their  jails  to  carry  the  law  into  effect ; 
and,  in  general,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  year  1850,  it  had  become  absolutely 
indispensable  that  Congress  should  pass 
some  law  for  the  execution  of  this  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution,  or  else  give 
up  that  provision  entirely.  That  was 
the  question.  I  was  in  Congress  when 
it  was  brought  forward.  I  was  for  a 
proper  law.  I  had,  indeed,  proposed 
a  different  law;  I  was  of  opinion  that  a 
summary  trial  by  a  jury  might  be  had, 
which  would  satisfy  the  people  of  the 
North,  and  produce  no  harm  to  those 
who  claimed  the  service  of  fugitives; 
but  I  left  the  Senate,  and  went  to  an 
other  station,  before  any  law  was  passed. 
The  law  of  1850  passed.  Now  I  under 
take,  as  a  lawyer,  and  on  my  profes 
sional  character,  to  say  to  you,  and  to 
all,  that  the  law  of  1850  is  decidedly 
more  favorable  to  the  fugitive  than 
General  Washington's  law  of  1793;  and 
I  will  tell  you  why.  In  the  first  place, 
the  present  law  places  the  power  in 
much  higher  hands;  in  the  hands  of 
independent  judges  of  the  Supreme  and 
Circuit  Courts,  and  District  Courts,  and 
of  commissioners  who  are  appointed  to 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


635 


office  for  their  legal  learning.  Every 
fugitive  is  brought  before  a  tribunal  of 
high  character,  of  eminent  ability,  of  re 
spectable  station.  In  the  second  place, 
when  a  claimant  comes  from  Virginia 
to  New  York,  to  say  that  one  A  or  one 
B  has  run  away,  or  is  a  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  he  brings  with  him  a 
record  of  the  court  of  the  county  from 
which  he  comes,  and  that  record  must 
be  sworn  to  before  a  magistrate,  and 
certified  by  the  county  clerk,  and  bear 
an  official  seal.  The  affidavit  must  state 
that  A  or  B  had  departed  under  such 
and  such  circumstances,  and  had  gone 
to  another  State ;  and  that  record  under 
seal  is,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  entitled  to  full  credit  in  e very- 
State.  Well,  the  claimant  or  his  agent 
comes  here,  and  he  presents  to  you  the 
seal  of  the  court  in  Virginia,  affixed  to 
a  record  of  his  declaration,  that  A  or  B 
had  escaped  from  service.  He  must 
then  prove  that  the  fugitive  is  here. 
He  brings  a  witness;  he  is  asked  if 
this  is  the  man,  and  he  proves  it; 
or,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  the  fact 
would  be  admitted  by  the  fugitive  him 
self. 

Such  is  the  present  law;  and,  much 
opposed  and  maligned  as  it  is,  it  is  more 
favorable  to  the  fugitive  slave  than  the 
law  enacted  during  Washington's  ad 
ministration,  in  1793,  which  was  sanc 
tioned  by  the  North  as  well  as  by  the 
South.  The  present  violent  opposition 
has  sprung  up  in  modern  times.  From 
whom  does  this  clamor  come?  Why, 
look  at  the  proceedings  of  the  antisla- 
very  conventions;  look  at  their  resolu 
tions.  Do  you  find  among  those  persons 
who  oppose  this  Fugitive  Slave  Law  any 
admission  whatever,  that  any  law  ought 
to  be  passed  to  carry  into  effect  the  sol 
emn  stipulations  of  the  Constitution? 
Tell  me  any  such  case ;  tell  me  if  any 
resolution  wras  adopted  by  the  conven 
tion  at  Syracuse  favorable  to  the  carry 
ing  out  of  the  Constitution.  Not  one ! 
The  fact  is,  Gentlemen,  they  oppose  the 
constitutional  provision ;  they  oppose  the 
whole !  Not  a  man  of  them  admits  that 
there  ought  to  be  any  law  on  the  sub 
ject.  They  deny,  altogether,  that  the 


provisions  of  the  Constitution  ought  to 
be  carried  into  effect.  Look  at  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  antislavery  conventions 
in  Ohio,  Massachusetts,  and  at  Syra 
cuse,  in  the  State  of  New  York.  What 
do  they  say?  "That,  so  help  them 
God,  no  colored  man  shall  be  sent  from 
the  State  of  New  York  back  to  his  mas 
ter  in  Virginia ! ' '  Do  not  they  say  that? 
And,  to  the  fulfilment  of  that  they 
"pledge  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and 
their  sacred  honor."  Their  sacred  hon 
or  !  They  pledge  their  sacred  honor  to 
violate  the  Constitution;  they  pledge 
their  sacred  honor  to  commit  treason 
against  the  laws  of  their  country ! 

I  have  already  stated,  Gentlemen, 
what  your  observation  of  these  things 
must  have  taught  you.  I  will  only  re 
cur  to  the  subject  for  a  moment,  for  the 
purpose  of  persuading  you,  as  public 
men  and  private  men,  as  good  men  and 
patriotic  men,  that  you  ought,  to  the 
extent  of  your  ability  and  influence,  to 
see  to  it  that  such  laws  are  established 
and  maintained  as  shall  keep  you,  and 
the  South,  and  the  West,  and  all  the 
country,  together,  on  the  terms  of  the 
Constitution.  I  say,  that  what  is  de 
manded  of  us  is  to  fulfil  our  constitu 
tional  duties,  and  to  do  for  the  South 
what  the  South  has  a  right  to  demand. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  been  some  time 
before  the  public.  My  character  is 
known,  my  life  is  before  the  country. 
I  profess  to  love  liberty  as  much  as  any 
man  living;  but  I  profess  to  love  Amer 
ican  liberty,  that  liberty  which  is  se 
cured  to  the  country  by  the  government 
under  which  we  live;  and  I  have  no 
great  opinion  of  that  other  and  higher 
liberty  which  disregards  the  restraints 
of  law  and  of  the  Constitution.  I  hold 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to 
be  the  bulwark,  the  only  bulwark,  of  our 
liberties  and  of  our  national  character. 
I  do  not  mean  that  you  should  become 
slaves  under  the  Constitution.  That  is 
not  American  liberty.  That  is  not  the 
liberty  of  the  Union  for  which  our  fathers 
fought,  that  liberty  which  has  given  us  a 
right  to  be  known  and  respected  all  over 
the  world.  I  mean  only  to  say,  that  I  am 
for  constitutional  liberty.  It  is  enough 


636 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


for  me  to  be  as  free  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  country  makes  me. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  let  me  say,  that,  as 
much  as  I  respect  the  character  of  the 
people  of  Western  New  York,  as  much 
as  I  wish  to  retain  their  good  opinion,  if 
I  should  ever  hereafter  be  placed  in  any 
situation  in  public  life,  let  me  tell  you 
now  that  you  must  not  expect  from  me 
the  slightest  variation,  even  of  a  hair's 
breadth,  from  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  am  a  Northern  man. 
I  was  born  at  the  North,  educated  at  the 
North,  have  lived  all  my  days  at  the 
North.  I  know  five  hundred  Northern 
men  to  one  Southern  man.  My  sympa 
thies,  all  my  sympathies,  my  love  of  lib 
erty  for  all  mankind,  of  every  color, 
are  the  same  as  yours.  My  affections 
and  hopes  in  that  respect  are  exactly 
like  yours.  I  wish  to  see  all  men  free, 
all  men  happy.  I  have  few  personal 
associations  out  of  the  Northern  States. 
My  people  are  your  people.  And  yet 
I  am  told  sometimes  that  I  am  not  a 
friend  of  liberty,  because  I  am  not  a 
Free  Soil  man.  What  am  I  ?  What 
was  I  ever  ?  What  shall  I  be  hereafter, 
if  I  could  sacrifice,  for  any  considera 
tion,  that  love  of  American  liberty  which 
has  glowed  in  my  breast  since  my  in 
fancy,  and  which,  I  hope,  will  never 
leave  me  till  I  expire  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  regret  that  slavery  exists 
in  the  Southern  States;  but  it  is  clear 
and  certain  that  Congress  has  no  power 
over  it.  It  may  be,  however,  that,  in 
the  dispensations  of  Providence,  some 
remedy  for  this  evil  may  occur,  or  may 
be  hoped  for  hereafter.  But,  in  the 
mean  time,  I  hold  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  you  need  never 
expect  from  me,  under  any  circum 
stances,  that  I  shall  falter  from  it;  that 
I  shall  be  otherwise  than  frank  and  de 
cisive.  I  would  not  part  with  my  char 
acter  as  a  man  of  firmness  and  decision, 
and  honor  and  principle,  for  all  that  the 
world  possesses.  You  will  find  me  true 
to  the  North,  because  all  my  sympathies 
are  with  the  North.  My  affections,  my 
children,  my  hopes,  my  everything,  are 
with  the  North.  But  when  I  stand  up 
before  my  country,  as  one  appointed  to 


administer  the  Constitution  of  the  coun 
try,  by  the  blessing  of  God  I  will  be 
just. 

Gentlemgn,  I  expect  to  be  libelled  and 
abused.  Yes,  libelled  and  abused.  But 
it  does  not  disturb  me.  I  have  not  lost 
a  night's  rest  for  a  great  many  years 
from  any  such  cause.  I  have  some 
talent  for  sleeping.  And  why  should 
I  not  expect  to  be  libelled?  Is  not 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
libelled  and  abused  ?  Do  not  some  peo 
ple  call  it  a  covenant  with  hell  ?  Is  not 
Washington  libelled  and  abused  ?  Is  ha 
not  called  a  bloodhound  on  the  track  of 
the  African  negro  ?  Are  not  our  fathers 
libelled  and  abused  by  their  own  chil 
dren  ?  And  ungrateful  children  they 
are.  How,  then,  shall  I  escape?  I  do 
not  expect  to  escape ;  but,  knowing  these 
things,  I  impute  no  bad  motive  to  any 
men  of  character  and  fair  standing. 
The  great  settlement  measures  of  the 
last  Congress  are  laws.  Many  respect 
able  men,  representatives  from  your  own 
State  and  from  other  States,  did  not 
concur  in  them.  I  do  not  impute  any 
bad  motive  to  them.  I  am  ready  to  be 
lieve  they  are  Americans  all.  They  may 
not  have  thought  these  laws  necessary; 
or  they  may  have  thought  that  they 
would  be  enacted  without  their  concur 
rence.  Let  all  that  pass  away.  If  they 
are  now  men  who  will  stand  by  what  is 
done,  and  stand  up  for  their  country, 
and  say  that,  as  these  laws  were  passed 
by  a  majority  of  the  whole  country,  we 
must  stand  by  them  and  live  by  them,  I 
will  respect  them  all  as  friends. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  allow  me  to  ask  of 
you,  What  do  you  think  would  have 
been  the  condition  of  the  country,  at 
this  time,  if  these  laws  had  not  been 
passed  by  the  last  Congress  ?  if  the  ques 
tion  of  the  Texas  boundary  had  not  been 
settled  ?  if  New  Mexico  and  Utah  had 
been  left  as  desert-places,  and  no  gov 
ernment  had  been  provided  for  them  ? 
And  if  the  other  great  object  to  which 
State  laws  had  opposed  so  many  obsta 
cles,  the  restoration  of  fugitives,  had  not 
been  provided  for,  I  ask,  what  would 
have  been  the  state  of  this  country  now? 
You  men  of  Erie  County,  you  men  of 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


637 


New  York,  I  conjure  you  to  go  home 
to-night  and  meditate  on  this  subject. 
What  would  have  been  the  state  of  this 
country,  now,  at  this  moment,  if  these 
laws  had  not  been  passed?  I  have 
given  my  opinion  that  we  should  have 
had  a  civil  war.  I  refer  it  to  you,  there 
fore,  for  your  consideration;  meditate 
on  it;  do  not  be  carried  away  by  any 
abstract  notions  or  metaphysical  ideas ; 
think  practically  on  the  great  question, 
What  would  have  been  the  condition  of 
the  United  States  at  this  moment,  if  we 
had  not  settled  these  agitating  ques 
tions?  I  repeat,  in  my  opinion,  there 
would  have  been  a  civil  war. 

Gentlemen,  will  you  allow  me,  for  a 
moment,  to  advert  to  myself  ?  I  have 
been  a  long  time  in  public  life ;  of  course, 
not  many  years  remain  to  me.  At  the 
commencement  of  1850,  I  looked  anx 
iously  at  the  condition  of  the  country, 
and  I  thought  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  leaving  the  existing  controversies  un 
adjusted  would  be  civil  war.  I  saw  dan 
ger  in  leaving  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
without  any  government,  a  prey  to  the 
power  of  Texas.  I  saw  the  condition  of 
things  arising  from  the  interference  of 
some  of  the  States  in  defeating  the  oper 
ation  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to 
the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves.  I  saw 
these  things,  and  I  made  up  my  mind 
to  encounter  whatever  might  betide  me 
in  the  attempt  to  avert  the  impending 
catastrophe.  And  allow  me  to  add  some 
thing  which  is  not  entirely  unworthy  of 
notice.  A  member  of  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  told  me  that  he  had  pre 
pared  a  list  of  one  hundred  and  forty 
speeches  which  had  been  made  in  Con 
gress  on  the  slavery  question.  "  That  is 
a  very  large  number,  my  friend,"  I  said; 
' '  but  how  is  that ?  "  "  Why , ' '  said  he, 
"  a  Northern  man  gets  up  and  speaks 
with  considerable  power  and  fluency 
until  the  Speaker's  hammer  knocks  him 
down.  Then  gets  up  a  Southern  man, 
and  he  speaks  with  more  warmth.  He 
is  nearer  the  sun,  and  he  comes  out  with 
the  greater  fervor  against  the  North. 
He  speaks  his  hour,  and  is  in  turn 
knocked  down.  And  so  it  has  gone  on, 
until  I  have  got  one  hundred  and  forty 


speeches  on  my  list."  "  Well,"  said  I, 
"  where  are  they,  and  what  are  they?  " 
"If  the  speaker,"  said  he,  "was  a 
Northern  man,  he  held  forth  against 
slavery;  and  if  he  was  from  the  South, 
he  abused  the  North;  and  all  these 
speeches  were  sent  by  the  members  to 
their  own  localities,  where  they  served 
only  to  aggravate  the  local  irritation  al 
ready  existing.  No  man  reads  both 
sides.  The  other  side  of  the  argument 
is  not  heard ;  and  the  speeches  sent  from 
Washington  in  such  prodigious  num 
bers,  instead  of  tending  to  conciliation, 
do  but  increase',  in  both  sections  of  the 
Union,  an  excitement  already  of  the 
most  dangerous  character." 

Gentlemen,  in  this  state  of  things,  I 
saw  that  something  must  be  done.  It 
was  impossible  to  look  with  indifference 
on  a  danger  of  so  formidable  a  char 
acter.  I  am  a  Massachusetts  man,  and 
I  bore  in  mind  what  Massachusetts 
has  ever  been  to  the  Constitution  and 
the  Union.  I  felt  the  importance  of 
the  duty  which  devolved  upon  one  to 
whom  she  had  so  long  confided  the  trust 
of  representing  her  in  either  house  of 
Congress.  As  I  honored  her,  and  re 
spected  her,  I  felt  that  1  was  serving 
her  in  my  endeavors  to  promote  the  wel 
fare  of  the  whole  country. 

And  now  suppose,  Gentlemen,  that, 
on  the  occasion  in  question,  I  had  taken 
a  different  course.  If  I  may  allude  so 
particularly  to  an  individual  so  insig 
nificant  as  myself,  suppose  that,  on  the 
7th  of  March,  1850,  instead  of  making 
a  speech  that  would,  so  far  as  my  power 
went,  reconcile  the  country,  I  had  joined 
in  the  general  clamor  of  the  Antislavery 
party.  Suppose  I  had  said,  "  I  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  any  accommodation ; 
we  will  admit  no  compromise ;  we  will 
let  Texas  invade  New  Mexico ;  we  will 
leave  New  Mexico  and  Utah  to  take 
care  of  themselves;  we  will  plant  our 
selves  on  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  let  the 
consequences  be  what  they  may. ' '  Now, 
Gentlemen,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
great  consequences  would  have  followed 
from  such  a  course  on  my  part ;  but  sup 
pose  I  had  taken  such  a  course.  How 
could  I  be  blamed  for  it?  Was  I  not  a 


638 


RECEPTION  AT  BUFFALO. 


Northern  man?  Did  I  not  know  Massa 
chusetts  feelings  and  prejudices?  But 
what  of  that?  I  am  an  American.  I 
was  made  a  whole  man,  and  I  did  not 
mean  to  make  myself  half  a  one.  I  felt 
that  I  had  a  duty  to  perform  to  my 
country,  to  my  own  reputation;  for  I 
flattered  myself  that  a  service  of  forty 
years  had  given  me  some  character,  on 
which  I  had  a  right  to  repose  for  my 
justification  in  the  performance  of  a 
duty  attended  with  some  degree  of  local 
unpopularity.  I  thought  it  my  duty  to 
pursue  this  course,  and  I  did  not  care 
what  was  to  be  the  consequence.  I  felt 
it  was  my  duty,  in  a  very  alarming 
crisis,  to  come  out;  to  go  for  my  coun 
try,  and  my  whole  country ;  and  to  ex 
ert  any  power  I  had  to  keep  that  coun 
try  together.  I  cared  for  nothing,  I 
was  afraid  of  nothing,  but  I  meant  to 
do  my  duty.  Duty  performed  makes  a 
man  happy  ;  duty  neglected  makes  a 
man  unhappy.  I  therefore,  in  the  face 


of  all  discouragements  and  all  dangers, 
was  ready  to  go  forth  and  do  what  I 
thought  my  country,  your  country,  de 
manded  of.  me.  And,  Gentlemen,  al 
low  me  to  say  here  to-day,  that  if  the 
fate  of  John  Rogers  had  stared  me  in 
the  face,  if  I  had  seen  the  stake,  if  I 
had  heard  the  fagots  already  crack 
ling,  by  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God 
I  would  have  gone  on  and  discharged 
the  duty  which  I  thought  my  country 
called  upon  me  to  perform.  I  would 
have  become  a  martyr  to  save  that 
country. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  farewell.  Live 
and  be  happy.  Live  like  patriots,  live 
like  Americans.  Live  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  inestimable  blessings  which  your 
fathers  prepared  for  you;  and  if  any 
thing  that  I  may  do  hereafter  should  be 
inconsistent,  in  the  slightest  degree,  with 
the  opinions  and  principles  which  I  have 
this  day  submitted  to  you,  then  discard 
me  for  ever  from  your  recollection. 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 

AN  ADDRESS    DELIVERED  AT  THE   LAYING  OF  THE  CORNER-STONE  OF  THE 
ADDITION  TO  THE  CAPITOL,   ON  THE  4TH  OF  JULY,   1851.1 


FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  I  greet  you  well ; 
I  give  you  joy,  on  the  return  of  this  an 
niversary  ;  and  I  felicitate  you,  also,  on 
the  more  particular  purpose  of  which 
this  ever-memorable  day  has  been  chosen 
to  witness  the  fulfilment.  Hail!  all 
hail!  I  see  before  and  around  me  a 
mass  of  faces,  glowing  with  cheerful 
ness  and  patriotic  pride.  I  see  thou 
sands  of  eyes  turned  towards  other  eyes, 
all  sparkling  with  gratification  and  de 
light.  This  is  the  New  World!  This 
is  America!  This  is  Washington!  and 
this  the  Capitol  of  the  United  States ! 
And  where  else,  among  the  nations,  can 
the  seat  of  government  be  surrounded, 
on  any  day  of  any  year,  by  those  who 
have  more  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  bless 
ings  which  they  possess?  Nowhere,  fel 
low-citizens !  assuredly,  nowhere!  Let 
us,  then,  meet  this  rising  sun  with  joy 
and  thanksgiving ! 

This  is  that  day  of  the  year  which  an 
nounced  to  mankind  the  great  fact  of 
American  Independence.  This  fresh 
and  brilliant  morning  blesses  our  vision 
with  another  beholding  of  the  birthday 
of  our  nation;  and  we  see  that  nation, 
of  recent  origin,  now  among  the  most 
considerable  and  powerful,  and  spread 
ing  over  the  continent  from  sea  to  sea. 

Among  the  first  colonists  from  Eu 
rope  to  this  part  of  America,  there  were 

1  The  following  motto  stands  upon  the  title- 
page  of  the  original  pamphlet  edition :  — 

"  Stet  Capitolium 
Fulgens ; 

late  nomen  in  ultimas 
Extendat  oras. " 


some,  doubtless,  who  contemplated  the 
distant  consequences  of  their  under 
taking,  and  who  saw  a  great  futurity. 
But,  in  general,  their  hopes  were  limited 
to  the  enjoyment  of  a  safe  asylum  from 
tyranny,  religious  and  civil,  and  to  re 
spectable  subsistence,  by  industry  and 
toil.  A  thick  veil  hid  our  times  from 
their  view.  But  the  progress  of  Amer 
ica,  however  slow,  could  not  but  at 
length  awaken  genius,  and  attract  the 
attention  of  mankind. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  second  cen 
tury  of  our  history,  Bishop  Berkeley, 
who,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  resided 
for  some  time  in  Newport,  in  Rhode 
Island,  wrote  his  well-known  "  Verses 
on  the  Prospect  of  Planting  ARTS  and 
LEARNING  in  AMERICA."  The  last 
stanza  of  this  little  poem  seems  to 
have  been  produced  by  a  high  poetical 
inspiration :  — 

"  Westward  the  course  of  empire  takes  its  way; 

The  four  first  acts  already  past, 
A  fifth  shall  close  the  drama  with  the  day : 
Time's  noblest  offspring  is  the  last." 

This  extraordinary  prophecy  may  be 
considered  only  as  the  result  of  long 
foresight  and  uncommon  sagacity;  of  a 
foresight  and  sagacity  stimulated,  nev 
ertheless,  by  excited  feeling  and  high 
enthusiasm.  So  clear  a  vision  of  what 
America  would  become  was  not  founded 
on  square  miles,  or  on  existing  num 
bers,  or  on  any  common  laws  of  statis 
tics.  It  was  an  intuitive  glance  into 
futurity;  it  was  a  grand  conception, 
strong,  ardent,  glowing,  embracing  all 


640 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


time  since  the  creation  of  the  world, 
and  all  regions  of  which  that  world  is 
composed,  and  judging  of  the  future  by 
just  analogy  with  the  past.  And  the 
inimitable  imagery  and  beauty  with 
which  the  thought  is  expressed,  joined 
to  the  conception  itself,  render  it  one 
of  the  most  striking  passages  in  our  lan 
guage. 

On  the  day  of  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence  our  illustrious  fathers  per 
formed  the  first  scene  in  the  last  great 
act  of  this  drama;  one  in  real  impor 
tance  infinitely  exceeding  that  for  which 
the  great  English  poet  invokes 

"  A  muse  of  fire,  .  .  . 
A  kingdom  for  a  stage,  princes  to  act; 
And  monarchs  to  behold  the  swelling  scene!  " 

The  Muse  inspiring  our  fathers  was 
the  Genius  of  Liberty,  all  on  fire  with 
a  sense  of  oppression,  and  a  resolution 
to  throw  it  off;  the  whole  world  was 
the  stage,  and  higher  characters  than 
princes  trod  it;  and,  instead  of  mon 
archs,  countries  and  nations  and  the 
age  beheld  the  swelling  scene.  How 
well  the  characters  were  cast,  and  how 
well  each  acted  his  part,  and  what  emo 
tions  the  whole  performance  excited,  let 
history,  now  and  hereafter,  tell. 

At  a  subsequent  period,  but  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Asaph  published  a  discourse,  in 
which  the  following  remarkable  passages 
are  found :  — 

"It  is  difficult  for  man  to  look  into  the 
destiny  of  future  ages ;  the  designs  of  Provi 
dence  are  vast  and  complicated,  and  our 
own  powers  are  too  narrow  to  admit  of  much 
satisfaction  to  our  curiosity.  But  when  we 
Bee  many  great  and  powerful  causes  con 
stantly  at  work,  we  cannot  doubt  of  their 
producing  proportionable  effects. 

"  The  colonies  in  North  America  have 
not  only  taken  root  and  acquired  strength, 
but  seem  hastening  with  an  accelerated  progress 
to  such  a  powerful  state  as  may  introduce  a  new 
and  important  change  in  human  affairs. 

"  Descended  from  ancestors  of  the  most 
improved  and  enlightened  part  of  the  Old 
World,  they  receive,  as  it  were  by  inheri 
tance,  all  the  improvements  and  discoveries 
of  their  mother  country.  And  it  happens 
fortunately  for  them  to  commence  their 
flourishing  state  at  a  time  when  the  human 


understanding  has  attained  to  the  free  use 
of  its  powers,  and  has  learned  to  act  with 
vigor  and  certainty.  They  may  avail  them 
selves,  not  only  of  the  experience  and  in 
dustry,  but  even  of  the  errors  and  mistakes, 
of  former  days.  Let  it  be  considered  for 
how  many  ages  a  great  part  of  the  world 
appears  not  to  have  thought  at  all ;  how 
many  more  they  have  been  busied  in  form 
ing  systems  and  conjectures,  while  reason 
has  been  lost  in  a  labyrinth  of  words,  and 
they  never  seem  to  have  suspected  on  what 
frivolous  matters  their  minds  were  em 
ployed. 

"  And  let  it  be  well  understood  what 
rapid  improvements,  what  important  dis 
coveries,  have  been  made,  in  a  few  years, 
by  a  few  countries,  with  our  own  at  their 
head,  which  have  at  last  discovered  the 
right  method  of  using  their  faculties. 

"  May  we  not  reasonably  expect  that  a 
number  of  provinces  possessed  of  these  ad 
vantages  and  quickened  by  mutual  emula 
tion,  with  only  the  common  progress  of  the 
human  mind,  should  very  considerably  en 
large  the  boundaries  of  science  ? 

"  The  vast  continent  itself,  over  which 
they  are  gradually  spreading,  may  be  con 
sidered  as  a  treasure  yet  untouched  of 
natural  productions  that  shall  hereafter 
afford  ample  matter  for  commerce  and  con 
templation.  And  if  we  reflect  what  a  stock 
of  knowledge  may  be  accumulated  by  the 
constant  progress  of  industry  and  observa 
tion,  fed  with  fresh  supplies  from  the  stores 
of  nature,  assisted  sometimes  by  those  happy 
strokes  of  chance  which  mock  all  the  pow 
ers  of  invention,  and  sometimes  by  those 
superior  characters  which  arise  occasionally 
to  instruct  and  enlighten  the  world,  it  is 
difficult  even  to  imagine  to  what  height  of 
improvement  their  discoveries  may  extend. 

"  And  perhaps  they  may  make  as  considera 
ble  advances  in  the  arts  of  civil  government  and 
the  conduct  of  life.  We  have  reason  to  be 
proud,  and  even  jealous,  of  our  excellent 
constitution ;  but  those  equitable  principles 
on  which  it  was  formed,  an  equal  repre 
sentation  (the  best  discovery  of  political 
wisdom),  arid  a  just  and  commodious  distri 
bution  of  power,  which  with  us  were  the 
price  of  civil  wars,  and  the  rewards  of  the 
virtues  and  sufferings  of  our  ancestors,  de 
scend  to  them  as  a  natural  inheritance, 
without  toil  or  pain. 

"  But  must  they  rest  here,  as  in  the  utmost 
effort  of  human  genius  ?  Can  chance  and  time, 
the  wisdom  and  the  experience  of  public  men, 
suggest  no  new  remedy  against  the  ecils  which 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


641 


vices  and  ambition  are  perpetually  apt  to 
cause  ?  May  they  not  hope,  without  pro-, 
sumption,  to  preserve  a  greater  xeal  for 
piety  and  public  devotion  than  we  have 
done  ?  For  sure  it  can  hardly  happen  to 
them,  as  it  has  to  us,  that,  when  religion  is 
best  understood  and  rendered  most  pure  and 
reasonable,  then  should  be  the  precise  time 
when  many  cease  to  believe  and  practise  it, 
and  all  in  general  become  most  indifferent 
to  it. 

"  May  they  not  possibly  be  more  success 
ful  than  their  mother  country  has  been  in 
preserving  that  reverence  and  authority 
which  are  due  to  the  laws  ?  to  those  who 
make,  and  to  those  who  execute  them  ? 
May  not  a  method  be  invented  of  procuring  some 
tolerable  share  of  the  comforts  of  life  to  those  in 
ferior  useful  ranks  of  men  to  whose  industry  we 
are  indebted  for  the  whole  ?  Time  and  disci 
pline  may  discover  some  means  to  correct  the  ex 
treme  inequalities  of  condition  between  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  so  dangerous  to  the  innocence  and 
happiness  of  both.  They  may  fortunately  be 
led  by  habit  and  choice  to  despise  that  lux 
ury  which  is  considered  with  us  the  true 
enjoyment  of  wealth.  They  may  have  lit 
tle  relish  for  that  ceaseless  hurry  of  amuse 
ments  which  is  pursued  in  this  country 
without  pleasure,  exercise,  or  employment. 
And  perhaps,  after  trying  some  of  our  follies 
and  caprices,  and  rejecting  the  rest,  they 
may  be  led  by  reason  and  experiment  to 
that  old  simplicity  which  was  first  pointed 
out  by  nature,  and  has  produced  those 
models  which  we  still  admire  in  arts,  elo 
quence,  and  manners.  The  diversity  of  new 
scenes  and  situations,  which  so  many  growing 
slates  m,ust  necessarily  pass  through,  may  intro 
duce  changes  in  the  fluctuating  opinions  and 
manners  of  men  which  we  can  form  no  conception 
of;  and  not  only  the  gracious  disposition  of 
Providence,  but  the  visible  preparation  of 
causes,  seems  to  indicate  strong  tendencies 
towards  a  general  improvement." 

Fellow-citizens,  this  "gracious  dispo 
sition  of  Providence,"  and  this  "visible 
preparation  of  causes,"  at  length  brought 
on  the  hour  for  decisive  action.  On  the 
4th  of  July,  1776,  the  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  Con 
gress  assembled,  declared  that  these 
United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought 

to  be,  FREE  AND  INDEPENDENT  STATES. 

This  Declaration,  made  by  most  patri 
otic  and  resolute  men,  trusting  in  the 
justice  of  their  cause  and  the  protection 


of  Heaven,  and  yet  made  not  without 
deep  solicitude  and  anxiety,  has  now 
stood  for  seventy-five  years,  and  still 
stands.  It  was  sealed  in  blood.  It  has 
met  dangers,  and  overcome  them;  it  has 
had  enemies,  and  conquered  them;  it 
has  had  detractors,  and  abashed  them 
all;  it  has  had  doubting  friends,  but  it 
has  cleared  all  doubts  away;  and  now, 
to-day,  raising  its  august  form  higher 
than  the  clouds,  twenty  millions  of  peo 
ple  contemplate  it  with  hallowed  love, 
and  the  world  beholds  it,  and  the  con 
sequences  which  have  followed  from  it, 
with  profound  admiration. 

This  anniversary  animates  and  gla  J- 
dens  and  unites  all  American  hearts. 
On  other  days  of  the  year  we  may  be 
party  men,  indulging  in  controversies, 
more  or  less  important  to  the  public 
good;  we  may  have  likes  and  dislikes, 
and  we  may  maintain  our  political  dif 
ferences,  often  with  warm,  and  some 
times  with  angry  feelings.  But  to-day 
we  are  Americans  all ;  and  all  nothing 
but  Americans.  As  the  great  luminary 
over  our  heads,  dissipating  mists  and 
fogs,  now  cheers  the  whole  hemisphere, 
so  do  the  associations  connected  with 
this  day  disperse  all  cloudy  and  sullen 
weather  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  true 
Americans.  Every  man's  heart  swells 
within  him;  every  man's  port  and  bear 
ing  become  somewhat  more  proud  and 
lofty,  as  he  remembers  that  seventy-five 
years  have  rolled  away,  and  that  the 
great  inheritance  of  liberty  is  still  his ; 
his,  undiminished  and  unimpaired;  his 
in  all  its  original  glory;  his  to  enjoy, 
his  to  protect,  and  his  to  transmit  to 
future  generations. 

Fellow-citizens,  this  inheritance  which 
we  enjoy  to-day  is  not  only  an  inheri 
tance  of  liberty,  but  of  our  own  peculiar 
American  liberty.  Liberty  has  existed 
in  other  times,  in  other  countries,  and  in 
other  forms.  There  has  been  a  Grecian 
liberty,  bold  and  powerful,  full  of  spirit, 
eloquence,  and  fire;  a  liberty  which  pro 
duced  multitudes  of  great  men,  arid  has 
transmitted  one  immortal  name,  the 
name  of  Demosthenes,  to  posterity.  But 
still  it  was  a  liberty  of  disconnected 
states,  sometimes  united,  indeed,  by 


41 


642 


THE   ADDITION  TO  THE   CAPITOL. 


temporary  leagues  and  confederacies,  but 
often  involved  in  wars  between  them 
selves.  The  sword  of  Sparta  turned  its 
sharpest  edge  against  Athens,  enslaved 
her,  and  devastated  Greece;  and,  in  her 
turn,  Sparta  was  compelled  to  bend  be 
fore  the  power  of  Thebes.  And  let  it 
ever  be  remembered,  especially  let  the 
truth  sink  deep  into  all  American  minds, 
that  it  was  the  WANT  OF  UNION  among 
her  several  states  which  finally  gave  the 
mastery  of  all  Greece  to  Philip  of  Mace- 
don. 

And  there  has  also  been  a  Roman  lib 
erty,  a  proud,  ambitious,  domineering 
spirit,  professing  free  and  popular  prin 
ciples  in  Rome  itself,  but,  even  in  the 
best  days  of  the  republic,  ready  to  carry 
slavery  and  chains  into  her  provinces, 
and  through  every  country  over  which 
her  eagles  could  be  borne.  What  was 
the  liberty  of  Spain,  or  Gaul,  or  Ger 
many,  or  Britain,  in  the  days  of  Rome? 
Did  true  constitutional  liberty  then  exist? 
As  the  Roman  empire  declined,  her  prov 
inces,  not  instructed  in  the  principles  of 
free  popular  government,  one  after  an 
other  declined  also,  and  when  Rome  her 
self  fell,  in  the  end,  all  fell  together. 

I  have  said,  Gentlemen,  that  our  in 
heritance  is  an  inheritance  of  American 
liberty.  That  liberty  is  characteristic, 
peculiar,  and  altogether  our  own.  Noth 
ing  like  it  existed  in  former  times,  nor 
was  known  in  the  most  enlightened 
states  of  antiquity;  while  with  us  its 
principles  have  become  interwoven  into 
the  minds  of  individual  men,  connected 
with  our  daily  opinions,  and  our  daily 
habits,  until  it  is,  if  I  may  so  say,  an 
element  of  social  as  well  as  of  political 
life;  and  the  consequence  is,  that  to 
whatever  region  an  American  citizen 
carries  himself,  he  takes  with  him,  fully 
developed  in  his  own  understanding  and 
experience,  our  American  principles  and 
opinions,  and  becomes  ready  at  once,  in 
co-operation  with  others,  to  apply  them 
to  the  formation  of  new  governments. 
Of  this  a  most  wonderful  instance  may 
be  seen  in  the  history  of  the  State  of 
California. 

On  a  former  occasion  I  ventured  to 
remark,  that  "it  is  very  difficult  to  es 


tablish  a  free  conservative  government 
for  the  equal  advancement  of  all  the  in 
terests  of  society.  What  has  Germany 
done,  learned  Germany,  more  full  of 
ancient  lore  than  all  the  world  beside? 
What  has  Italy  done?  What  have  they 
done  who  dwell  on  the  spot  where  Cicero 
lived  ?  They  have  not  the  power  of  self- 
government  which  a  common  town-meet 
ing,  with  us,  possesses Yes,  I 

say  that  those  persons  who  have  gone 
from  our  town-meetings  to  dig  gold  in 
California  are  more  fit  to  make  a  repub 
lican  government  than  any  body  of  men 
in  Germany  or  Italy;  because  they  have 
learned  this  one  great  lesson,  that  there 
is  no  security  without  law,  and  that, 
under  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
are  placed,  where  there  is  no  military 
authority  to  cut  their  throats,  there  is  no 
sovereign  will  but  the  will  of  the  major 
ity ;  that,  therefore,  if  they  remain,  they 
must  submit  to  that  will."  And  this  I 
believe  to  be  strictly  true. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  if  your  patience 
will  hold  out,  I  will  venture,  before 
proceeding  to  the  more  appropriate  and 
particular  duties  of  the  day,  to  state,  in 
a  few  words,  what  I  take  these  Ameri 
can  political  principles  in  substance  to 
be.  They  consist,  as  I  think,  in  the 
first  place,  in  the  establishment  of  popu 
lar  governments,  on  the  basis  of  repre 
sentation;  for  it  is  plain  that  a  pure 
democracy,  like  that  which  existed  in 
some  of  the  states  of  Greece,  in  which 
every  individual  had  a  direct  vote  in  the 
enactment  of  all  laws,  cannot  possibly 
exist  in  a  country  of  wide  extent.  This 
representation  is  to  be  made  as  equal  as 
circumstances  will  allow.  Now,  this 
principle  of  popular  representation,  pre 
vailing  either  in  all  the  branches  of  gov 
ernment,  or  in  some  of  them,  has  ex 
isted  in  these  States  almost  from  the 
days  of  the  settlements  at  Jamestown 
and  Plymouth  ;  borrowed,  no  doubt, 
from  the  example  of  the  popular  branch 
of  the  British  legislature.  The  repre 
sentation  of  the  people  in  the  British 
House  of  Commons  was,  however,  origi 
nally  very  unequal,  and  is  yet  not  equal. 
Indeed,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
appearance  of  knights  and  burgesses,  as- 


THE  ADDITION   TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


643 


sembling  on  the  summons  of  the  crown, 
was  not  intended  at  first  as  an  assistance 
and  support  to  the  royal  prerogative,  in 
matters  of  revenue  and  taxation,  rather 
than  as  a  mode  of  ascertaining  popular 
opinion.  Nevertheless,  representation 
had  a  popular  origin,  and  savored  more 
and  more  of  the  character  of  that  origin, 
as  it  acquired,  by  slow  degrees,  greater 
and  greater  strength, 'in  the  actual  gov 
ernment  of  the  country.  The  constitu 
tion  of  the  House  of  Commons  was  cer 
tainly  a  form  of  representation,  how 
ever  unequal;  numbers  were  counted, 
and  majorities  prevailed;  and  when  our 
ancestors,  acting  upon  this  example,  in 
troduced  more  equality  of  representa 
tion,  the  idea  assumed  a  more  rational 
and  distinct  shape.  At  any  rate,  this 
manner  of  exercising  popular  power  was 
familiar  to  our  fathers  when  they  settled 
on  this  continent.  They  adopted  it,  and 
generation  has  risen  up  after  generation, 
all  acknowledging  it,  and  all  learning  its 
practice  and  its  forms. 

The  next  fundamental  principle  in 
our  system  is,  that  the  will  of  the  ma 
jority,  fairly  expressed  through  the 
means  of  representation,  shall  have 
the  force  of  law;  and  it  is  quite  evi 
dent  that,  in  a  country  without  thrones 
or  aristocracies  or  privileged  castes  or 
classes,  there  can  be  no  other  founda 
tion  for  law  to  stand  upon. 

And,  as  the  necessary  result  of  this, 
the  third  element  is,  that  the  law  is  the 
supreme  rule  for  the  government  of  all. 
The  great  sentiment  of  Alcasus,  so  beau 
tifully  presented  to  us  by  Sir  William 
Jones,  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  the 
construction  and  maintenance  of  our 
political  systems :  — 

"What  constitutes  a  state? 
Not  high-raised  battlement  or  labored  mound, 
Thick  wall  or  moated  gate ; 
Not  cities  proud,   with    spires    and    turrets 

crowned ; 

Not  bays  and  broad-armed  ports, 
Where,   laughing  at   the   storm,  rich  navies 

ride ; 

Not  starred  and  spangled  courts, 
Where  low-browed  baseness  wafts  perfume  to 

pride. 

No:  MEN,  high-minded  MEN, 
With  powers  as  far  above  dull  brutes  endued, 
In  forest,  brake,  or  den, 


As  beasts  excel  cold  rocks  and  brambles  rude : 

Men  who  their  duties  know, 

But  know  their  rights,  and,  knowing,  dare 

maintain ; 

Prevent  the  long-aimed  blow, 
And  crush  the  tyrant   while  they  rend  the 

chain: 

These  constitute  a  state ; 
And  SOVEREIGN  LAW,  that  state's  collected 

will, 

O'er  thrones  and  globes  elate 
Sits  empress,  crowning  good,  repressing  ill." 

And,  finally,  another  most  important 
part  of  the  great  fabric  of  American 
liberty  is,  that  there  shall  be  written 
constitutions,  founded  on  the  imme 
diate  authority  of  the  people  them 
selves,  and  regulating  and  restraining 
all  the  powers  conferred  upon  govern 
ment,  whether  legislative,  executive,  or 
judicial. 

This,  fellow-citizens,  I  suppose  to  be 
a  just  summary  of  our  American  prin 
ciples,  and  I  have  on  this  occasion 
sought  to  express  them  in  the  plain 
est  and  in  the  fewest  words.  The  sum 
mary  may  not  be  entirely  exact,  but  I 
hope  it  may  be  sufficiently  so  to  make 
manifest  to  the  rising  generation  among 
ourselves,  and  to  those  elsewhere  who 
may  choose  to  inquire  into  the  nature 
of  our  political  institutions,  the  general 
theory  upon  which  they  are  founded. 

And  I  now  proceed  to  add,  that  the 
strong  and  deep-settled  conviction  of  all 
intelligent  persons  amongst  us  is,  that, 
in  order  to  support  a  useful  and  wise 
government  upon  these  popular  princi 
ples,  the  general  education  of  the  peo 
ple,  and  the.  wide  diffusion  of  pure 
morality  and  true  religion,  are  indis 
pensable.  Individual  virtue  is  a  part 
of  public  virtue.  It  is  difficult  to  con 
ceive  how  there  can  remain  morality  in 
the  government  when  it  shall  cease  to 
exist  among  the  people  ;  or  how  the 
aggregate  of  the  political  institutions, 
all  the  organs  of  which  consist  only  of 
men,  should  be  wise,  and  beneficent, 
and  competent  to  inspire  confidence,  if 
the  opposite  qualities  belong  to  the  in 
dividuals  who  constitute  those  organs, 
and  make  up  that  aggregate. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  I  take  leave 
of  this  part  of  the  duty  which  I  pro- 


644 


THE   ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


posed  to  perform;  and,  once  more  fe 
licitating  you  and  myself  that  our  eyes 
have  seen  the  light  of  this  blessed  morn 
ing,  and  that  our  ears  have  heard  the 
shouts  with  which  joyous  thousands  wel 
come  its  return,  and  joining  with  you  in 
the  hope  that  every  revolving  year  may 
renew  these  rejoicings  to  the  end  of 
time,  I  proceed  to  address  you,  shortly, 
upon  the  particular  occasion  of  our  as 
sembling  here  to-day. 

Fellow-citizens,  by  the  act  of  Congress 
of  the  30th  of  September,  1850,  provis 
ion  was  made  for  the  extension  of  the 
Capitol,  according  to  such  plan  as  might 
be  approved  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  for  the  necessary 
sums  to  be  expended,  under  his  direc 
tion,  by  such  architect  as  he  might  ap 
point.  This  measure  was  imperatively 
demanded,  for  the  use  of  the  legislative 
and  judiciary  departments,  the  public 
libraries,  the  occasional  accommodation 
of  the  chief  executive  magistrate,  and 
for  other  objects.  Xo  act  of  Congress 
incurring  a  large  expenditure  has  re 
ceived  more  general  approbation  from 
the  people.  The  President  has  pro 
ceeded  to  execute  this  law.  He  has 
approved  a  plan;  he  has  appointed  an 
architect;  and  all  things  are  now  ready 
for  the  commencement  of  the  work. 

The  anniversary  of  national  indepen 
dence  appeared  to  afford  an  auspicious 
occasion  for  laying  the  foundation-stone 
of  the  additional  building.  That  cere 
mony  has  now  been  performed  by  the 
President  himself,  in  the  presence  and 
view  of  this  multitude.  He  has  thought 
that  the  day  and  the  occasion  made  a 
united  and  imperative  call  for  some 
short  address  to  the  people  here  as 
sembled;  and  it  is  at  his  request  that 
I  have  appeared  before  you  to  perform 
that  part  of  the  duty  which  was  deemed 
incumbent  on  us. 

Beneath  the  stone  is  deposited,  among 
other  things,  a  list  of  which  will  be  pub 
lished,  the  following  brief  account  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  day,  in  my  hand 
writing:  — 

"  On  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the 
seventy-sixth  year  of  the  Independence  of 


the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  city 
of  Washington,  being  the  4th  day  of  July, 
1851,  this  stone,  designed  as  the  corner 
stone  of  the  extension  of  the  Capitol,  ac 
cording  to*  a  plan  approved  by  the  Presi 
dent,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of  Congress, 
was  laid  by 

MILLARD    FILLMORE, 

PRESIDENT     OF     THE     UNITED     STATES, 

assisted  by  the  Grand  Master  of  the  Ma 
sonic  Lodges,  in  the  presence  of  many 
members  of  Congress,  of  officers  of  the 
Executive  and  Judiciary  Departments,  Na 
tional,  State,  and  District,  of  officers  of  the 
army  and  navy,  the  corporate  authorities 
of  this  and  neighboring  cities,  many  asso 
ciations,  civil  and  military  and  masonic, 
members  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution 
and  National  Institute,  professors  of  col 
leges  and  teachers  of  schools  of  the  Dis 
trict,  with  their  students  and  pupils,  and  a 
vast  concourse  of  people  from  places  near 
and  remote,  including  a  few  surviving  gen 
tlemen  who  witnessed  the  laying  of  the 
corner-stone  of  the  Capitol  by  President 
Washington,  on  the  18th  day  of  September, 
A.  D.  1793. 

"  If,  therefore,  it  shall  be  hereafter  the 
will  of  God  that  this  structure  shall  fall 
from  its  base,  that  its  foundation  be  up 
turned,  and  this  deposit  brought  to  the  eyes 
of  men,  be  it  then  known,  that  on  this  day 
the  Union  of  the  United  States  of  America 
stands  firm,  that  their  Constitution  still 
exists  unimpaired,  and  with  all  its  original 
usefulness  and  glory;  growing  every  day 
stronger  and  stronger  in  the  affections  of 
the  great  body  of  the  American  people, 
and  attracting  more  and  more  the  admira 
tion  of  the  world.  And  all  here  assembled, 
whether  belonging  to  public  life  or  to  pri 
vate  life,  with  hearts  devoutly  thankful  to 
Almighty  God  for  the  preservation  of  the 
liberty  and  happiness  of  the  country,  unite 
in  sincere  and  fervent  prayers  that  this  de 
posit,  and  the  walls  and  arches,  the  domes 
and  towers,  the  columns  and  entablatures, 
now  to  be  erected  over  it,  may  endure  for 
ever !  • 

"  GOD  SAVE  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF 
AMERICA! 

"  DANIEL  WEBSTER, 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States." 

Fellow-citizens,  fifty-eight  years  ago 
Washington  stood  on  this  spot  to  exe 
cute  a  duty  like  that  which  has  now  been 
performed^.  He  then  laid  the  corner-stone 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL 


645 


of  the  original  Capitol.  He  was  at  the 
head  of  the  government,  at  that  time 
weak  in  resources,  burdened  with  debt, 
just  struggling  into  political  existence 
and  respectability,  and  agitated  by  the 
heaving  waves  which  were  overturning 
European  thrones.  But  even  then,  in 
many  important  respects,  the  govern 
ment  was  strong.  It  was  strong  in 
Washington's  own  great  character;  it 
was  strong  in  the  wisdom  and  patriotism 
of  other  eminent  public  men,  his  political 
associates  and  fellow-laborers ;  and  it  was 
strong  in  the  affections  of  the  people. 
Since  that  time  astonishing  changes 


have  been  wrought  in  the  condition  and 
prospects  of  the  American  people;  and 
a  degree  of  progress  witnessed  with 
which  the  world  can  furnish  no  parallel. 
As  we  review7  the  course  of  that  progress, 
wonder  and  amazement  arrest  our  atten 
tion  at  every  step.  The  present  occasion, 
although  allowing  of  no  lengthened  re 
marks,  may  yet,  perhaps,  admit  of  a 
short  comparative  statement  of  impor 
tant  subjects  of  national  interest  as  they 
existed  at  that  day,  and  as  they  now  ex 
ist.  I  have  adopted  for  this  purpose  the 
tabular  form  of  statement,  as  being  the 
most  brief  and  significant. 


COMPARATIVE   TABLE. 


Number  of  States 

Representatives  and  Senators  in  Congress  .... 

Population  of  the  United  States 

Population  of  Boston 

Population  of  Baltimore 

Population  of  Philadelphia 

Population  of  New  York  (city) 

Population  of  Washington 

Population  of  Richmond 

Population  of  Charleston 

Amount  of  receipts  into  the  Treasury 

Amount  of  expenditures 

Amount  of  imports 

Amount  of  exports 

Amount  of  tonnage  (tons) 

Area  of  the  United  States  in  square  miles  .     .     .     . 

Rank  and  file  of  the  army 

Militia  (enrolled) 

Navy  of  the  United  States  (vessels) 

Navy  armament  (ordnance) 

Treaties  and  conventions  with  foreign  powers      .     . 

Light-houses  and  light-boats 

Expenditures  for  ditto 

Area  of  the  Capitol 

Number  of  miles  of  railroad  in  operation   .... 

Cost  of  ditto 

Number  of  miles  in  course  of  construction     .     .     . 

Lines  of  electric  telegraph,  in  miles 

Number  of  post-offices 

Number  of  miles  of  post-route 

Amount  of  revenue  from  post-offices 

Amount  of  expenditures  of  Post-Office  Department 
Number  of  miles  of  mail  transportation     .... 

Number  of  colleges 

Public  libraries 

Volumes  in  ditto 

School  libraries 

Volumes  in  ditto 

Emigrants  from  Europe  to  the  United  States  .     .     . 
Coinage  at  the  Mint 


Year  1793. 

Year  1851. 

15 

31 

135 

296 

3,929,328 

23,267,498 

18,038 

136,871 

13,503 

169,054 

42,520 

409,045 

33,121 

515,507 

. 

40,075 

4,000 

27,582 

16,359 

42,983 

$5,720,624 

$52,312,980 

$7,529,575 

$48,005,879 

$31,000,000 

$215,725,995 

§26,109,000 

$217,517,130 

520,764 

3,772,440 

805,461 

3,314,365 

5,120 

10,000 

. 

2,006,456 

(None.) 

76 

. 

2,012 

9 

90 

12 

372 

$12,061 

$529,265 

4-  acre. 

4£  acres. 

. 

10,287 

. 

$306,607,954 

.  . 

10,092 

. 

15,000 

209 

21,551 

5,642 

196,290 

$104,747 

$6,727,867 

$72,040 

$6,024,567 

.  . 

62,465,724 

19 

121 

35 

694 

75,000 

2,201,632 

. 

10,000 

. 

2,000,000 

10,000 

299,610 

$9,664 

$52,019,465 

646 


THE   ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


In  respect  to  the  growth  of  Western 
trade  and  commerce,  I  extract  a  few 
sentences  from  a  very  valuable  address 
before  the  Historical  Society  of  Ohio, 
by  William  D.  Gallagher,  Esq.,  1850:  — 

"  A  few  facts  will  exhibit  as  well  as  a 
volume  the  wonderful  growth  of  Western 
trade  and  commerce.  Previous  to  the  year 
1800,  some  eight  or  ten  keel-boats,  of  twenty 
or  twenty-five  tons  each,  performed  all  the 
carrying  trade  between  Cincinnati  and 
Pittsburg.  In  1802  the  first  government 
vessel  appeared  on  Lake  Erie.  In  1811  the 
first  steamboat  (the  Orleans)  was  launched 
at  Pittsburg.  In  1826  the  waters  of  Michi 
gan  were  first  ploughed  by  the  keel  of  a 
steamboat,  a  pleasure  trip  to  Green  Bay 
being  planned  and  executed  in  the  summer 
of  this  year.  In  1832  a  steamboat  first  ap 
peared  at  Chicago.  At  the  present  time  the 
entire  number  of  steamboats  running  on  the 
Mississippi  and  Ohio  and  their  tributaries  is 
more  probably  over  than  under  six  hundred, 
the  aggregate  tonnage  of  which  is  not  short 
of  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  ;  a  larger 
number  of  steamboats  than  England  can 
claim,  and  a  greater  steam  commercial 
marine  than  that  employed  by  Great  Brit 
ain  and  her  dependencies." 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  having  stat 
ed  to  you  this  infallible  proof  of  the 
growth  and  prosperity  of  the  nation,  I 
ask  you.  and  I  would  ask  every  man, 
whether  the  government  which  has  been 
over  us  has  proved  itself  an  infliction 
or  a  curse  to  the  country,  or  any  part 
of  it? 

Ye  men  of  the  South,  of  all  the  origi 
nal  Southern  States,  what  say  you  to  all 
this?  Are  you,  or  any  of  you,  ashamed 
of  this  great  work  of  your  fathers  ? 
Your  fathers  were  not  they  who  stoned 
the  prophets  and  killed  them.  They 
were  among  the  prophets ;  they  were  of 
the  prophets ;  they  were  themselves  the 
prophets. 

Ye  men  of  Virginia,  what  do  you  say 
to  all  this?  Ye  men  of  the  Potomac, 
dwelling  along  the  shores  of  that  river 
on  which  WASHINGTON  lived  and  died, 
and  where  his  remains  now  rest,  ye,  so 
many  of  whom  may  see  the  domes  of 
the  Capitol  from  your  own  homes,  what 
say  ye? 

Ye  men  of  James  River  and  the  Bay, 


places  consecrated  by  the  early  settle 
ment  of  your  Commonwealth,  what  do 
you  say?  Do  you  desire,  from  the  soil 
of  your  ^ate,  or  as  you  travel  to  the 
North,  to  see  these  halls  vacated,  their 
beauty  and  ornaments  destroyed,  and 
their  national  usefulness  gone  for  ever? 

Ye  men  beyond  the  Blue  Ridge,  many 
thousands  of  whom  are  nearer  to  this 
Capitol  than  to  the  seat  of  government 
of  your  own  State,  what  do  you  think 
of  breaking  chis  great  association  into 
fragments  of  States  and  of  people?  I 
know  that  some  of  you,  and  I  believe 
that  you  all,  would  be  almost  as  much 
shocked  at  the  announcement  of  such  a 
catastrophe,  as  if  you  were  to  be  in 
formed  that  the  Blue  Ridge  itself  would 
soon  totter  from  its  base.  And  ye  men 
of  Western  Virginia,  who  occupy  the 
great  slope  from  the  top  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  to  Ohio  and  Kentucky,  what 
benefit  do  you  propose  to  yourselves 
by  disunion?  If  you  "secede,"  what 
do  you  "  secede  "  from,  and  what  do  you 
"  accede  "  to?  Do  you  look  for  the  cur 
rent  of  the  Ohio  to  change,  and  to  bring 
you  and  your  commerce  to  the  tide 
waters  of  Eastern  rivers?  What  man 
in  his  senses  can  suppose  that  you 
would  remain  part  and  parcel  of  Vir 
ginia  a  month  after  Virginia  should 
have  ceased  to  be  part  and  parcel  of  the 
United  States? 

The  secession  of  Virginia  !  The  se 
cession  of  Virginia,  whether  alone  or 
in  company,  is  most  improbable,  the 
greatest  of  all  improbabilities.  Vir 
ginia,  to  her  everlasting  honor,  acted 
a  great  part  in  framing  and  establishing 
the  present  Constitution.  She  has  had 
her  reward  and  her  distinction.  Seven  of 
her  noble  sons  have  each  filled  the  Presi 
dency,  and  enjoyed  the  highest  honors 
of  the  country.  Dolorous  complaints 
come  up  to  us  from  the  South,  that  Vir 
ginia  will  not  head  the  march  of  seces 
sion,  and  lead  the  other  Southern  States 
out  of  the  Union.  This,  if  it  should 
happen,  would  be  something  of  a  mar 
vel,  certainly,  considering  how  much 
pains  Virginia  took  to  lead  these  same 
States  into  the  Union,  and  considering, 
too,  that  she  has  partaken  as  largely  of 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


647 


its  benefits  and  its  government  as  any 
other  State. 

And  ye  men  of  the  other  Southern 
States,  members  of  the  Old  Thirteen; 
yes,  members  of  the  Old  Thirteen ;  that 
always  touches  my  regard  and  my  sym 
pathies;  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  South 
Carolina!  What  page  in  your  history, 
or  in  the  history  of  any  one  of  you,  is 
brighter  than  those  which  have  been 
recorded  since  the  Union  was  formed? 
Or  through  what  period  has  your  pros 
perity  been  greater,  or  your  peace  and 
happiness  better  secured?  What  names 
even  has  South  Carolina,  now  so  much 
dissatisfied,  what  names  has  she  of 
which  her  intelligent  sons  are  more 
proud  than  those  which  have  been  con 
nected  with  the  government  of  the  Unit 
ed  States?  In  Revolutionary  times,  and 
in  the  earliest  days  of  this  Constitution, 
there  was  no  State  more  honored,  or 
more  deserving  of  honor.  Where  is 
she  now?  And  what  a  fall  is  there, 
my  countrymen!  But  I  leave  her  to 
her  own  reflections,  commending  to  her, 
with  all  my  heart,  the  due  consideration 
of  her  owTn  example  in  times  now  gone 

by. 

Fellow-citizens,  there  are  some  dis 
eases  of  the  mind  as  well  as  of  the 
body,  diseases  of  communities  as  well 
as  diseases  of  individuals,  that  must  be 
left  to  their  own  cure ;  at  least  it  is  wise 
to  leave  them  so  until  the  last  critical 
moment  shall  arrive. 

I  hope  it  is  not  irreverent,  and  cer 
tainly  it  is  not  intended  as  reproach, 
when  I  say,  that  I  know  no  stronger 
expression  in  our  language  than  that 
which  describes  the  restoration  of  the 
wayward  son,  —  "he  came  to  himself." 
He  had  broken  away  from  all  the  ties  of 
love,  family,  and  friendship.  lie  had 
forsaken  every  thing  which  he  had  once 
regarded  in  his  father's  house.  He  had 
forsworn  his  natural  sympathies,  affec 
tions,  and  habits,  and  taken  his  journey 
into  a  far  country.  He  had  gone  away 
from  himself  and  out  of  himself.  But 
misfortunes  overtook  him,  and  famine 
threatened  him  with  starvation  and 
death.  Xo  entreaties  from  home  fol 
lowed  him  to  beckon  him  back;  no  ad 


monition  from  others  warned  him  of  his 
fate.  But  the  hour  of  reflection  had 
come,  and  nature  and  conscience  wrought 
within  him,  until  at  length  "  he  came  to 
himself." 

And  now,  ye  men  of  the  new  States 
of  the  South !  You  are  not  of  the  origi 
nal  thirteen.  The  battle  had  been  fought 
and  won,  the  Revolution  achieved,  and 
the  Constitution  established,  before  your 
States  had  any  existence  as  States.  You 
came  to  a  prepared  banquet,  and  had 
seats  assigned  you  at  table  just  as  honor 
able  as  those  which  were  filled  by  older 
guests.  You  have  been  and  are  singu 
larly  prosperous ;  and  if  any  one  should 
deny  this,  you  would  at  once  contradict 
his  assertion.  You  have  bought  vast 
quantities  of  choice  and  excellent  land 
at  the  lowest  price;  and  if  the  public 
domain  has  not  been  lavished  upon  you, 
you  yourself  will  admit  that  it  has  been 
appropriated  to  your  own  uses  by  a  very 
liberal  hand.  And  yet  in  some  of  these 
States,  not  in  all,  persons  are  found  in 
favor  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  or 
of  secession  from  it.  Such  opinions  are 
expressed  even  where  the  general  pros 
perity  of  the  community  has  been  the 
most  rapidly  advanced.  In  the  flourish 
ing  and  interesting  State  of  Mississippi, 
for  example,  there  is  a  large  party  which 
insists  that  her  grievances  are  intoler 
able,  that  the  whole  body  politic  is  in  a 
state  of  suffering;  and  all  along,  and 
through  her  whole  extent  on  the  Missis 
sippi,  a  loud  cry  rings  that  her  only 
remedy  is  "  Secession,"  "  Secession." 
Now,  Gentlemen,  what  infliction  does 
the  State  of  Mississippi  suffer  under? 
What  oppression  prostrates  her  strength 
or  destroys  her  happiness?  Before  we 
can  judge  of  the  proper  remedy,  we 
must  know  something  of  the  disease; 
and,  for  my  part,  I  confess  that  the  real 
evil  existing  in  the  case  appears  to  me 
to  be  a  certain  inquietude  or  uneasiness 
growing  out  of  a  high  degree  of  pros 
perity  and  consciousness  of  wealth  and 
power,  which  sometimes  lead  men  to  be 
ready  for  changes,  and  to  push  on  un 
reasonably  to  still  higher  elevation.  If 
this  be  the  truth  of  the  matter,  her  po 
litical  doctors  are  about  right.  If  the 


648 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


complaint  spring  from  over- wrought 
prosperity,  for  that  disease  I  have  no 
doubt  that  secession  would  prove  a 
sovereign  remedy. 

But  I  return  to  the  leading  topic  on 
which  I  was  engaged.  In  the  depart 
ment  of  invention  there  have  been 
wonderful  applications  of  science  to 
arts  within  the  last  sixty  years.  The 
spacious  hall  of  the  Patent  Office  is  at 
once  the  repository  and  proof  of  Ameri 
can  inventive  art  and  genius.  Their 
results  are  seen  in  the  numerous  im 
provements  by  which  human  labor  is 
abridged. 

Without  going  into  details,  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  say,  that  many  of  the  ap 
plications  of  steam  to  locomotion  and 
manufactures,  of  electricit}^  and  magnet 
ism  to  the  production  of  mechanical  mo 
tion,  the  electrical  telegraph,  the  regis 
tration  of  astronomical  phenomena,  the 
art  of  multiplying  engravings,  the  in 
troduction  and  improvement  among  us 
of  all  the  important  inventions  of  the 
Old  World,  are  striking  indications  of 
the  progress  of  this  country  in  the  use 
ful  arts.  The  net- work  of  railroads  and 
telegraphic  lines  by  which  this  vast 
country  is  reticulated  have  not  only 
developed  its  resources,  but  united  em 
phatically,  in  metallic  bands,  all  parts 
of  the  Union.  The  hydraulic  works  of 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston 
surpass  in  extent  and  importance  those 
of  ancient  Rome. 

But  we  have  not  confined  our  atten 
tion  to  the  immediate  application  of 
science  to  the  useful  arts.  We  have 
entered  the  field  of  original  research, 
and  have  enlarged  the  bounds  of  scien 
tific  knowledge. 

Sixty  years  ago,  besides  the  brilliant 
discoveries  of  Franklin  in  electricity, 
scarcely  any  thing  had  been  done  among 
us  in  the  way  of  original  discovery.  Our 
men  of  science  were  content  with  re 
peating  the  experiments  and  diffusing 
a  knowledge  of  the  discoveries  of  the 
learned  of  the  Old  World,  without  at 
tempting  to  add  a  single  new  fact  or 
principle  to  the  existing  stock.  Writhin 
the  last  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  a  re 


markable  improvement  has  taken  place 
in  this  respect.  Our  natural  history  has 
been  explored  in  all  its  branches;  our 
geology  has  been  investigated  with  re 
sults  of  the"  highest  interest  to  practical 
and  theoretical  science.  Discoveries  have 
been  made  in  pure  chemistry  and  elec 
tricity,  which  have  received  the  approba 
tion  of  the  world.  The  advance  which 
has  been  made  in  meteorology  in  this 
country,  within  the  last  twenty  years,  is 
equal  to  that -made  during  the  same 
period  in  all  the  world  besides. 

In  1793  there  was  not  in  the  United 
States  an  instrument  with  which  a  good 
observation  of  the  heavenly  bodies  could 
be  made.  There  are  now  instruments 
at  Washington,  Cambridge,  and  Cin 
cinnati  equal  to  those  at  the  best  Euro 
pean  observatories,  and  the  original  dis 
coveries  in  astronomy  within  the  last 
five  years,  in  this  country,  are  among 
the  most  brilliant  of  the  age.  I  can 
hardly  refrain  from  saying,  in  this  con 
nection,  that  the  u  Celestial  Mechanics  " 
of  La  Place  has  been  translated  and  com 
mented  upon  by  Bowditch. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  geography  and 
topography  of  the  American  continent 
has  been  rapidly  extended  by  the  labor 
and  science  of  the  officers  of  the  United 
States  army,  and  discoveries  of  much 
interest  in  distant  seas  have  resulted 
from  the  enterprise  of  the  navy. 

In  1807,  a  survey  of  the  coast  of  the 
United  States  was  commenced,  which  at 
that  time  it  was  supposed  no  American 
was  competent  to  direct.  The  work 
has,  however,  grown  within  the  last  few 
years,  under  a  native  superintendent, 
in  importance  and  extent,  beyond  any 
enterprise  of  the  kind  ever  before  at 
tempted. 

These  facts  conclusively  prove  that  a 
great  advance  has  been  made  among  us, 
not  only  in  the  application  of  science  to 
the  wants  of  ordinary  life,  but  in  sci 
ence  itself,  in  its  highest  branches,  in 
its  adaptation  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of 
the  immortal  mind. 

In  respect  to  literature,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  some  books  of  elementary  edu 
cation,  and  some  theological  treatises,  of 
which  scarcely  any  but  those  of  Jona- 


THE   ADDITION   TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


649 


than  Edwards  have  any  permanent  value, 
and  some  works  on  local  history  and  pol 
itics,  like  Hutchinson's  Massachusetts, 
Jefferson's  Notes  on  Virginia,  the  Feder 
alist,  Belknap's  New  Hampshire,  and 
Morse's  Geography,  and  a  few  others, 
America  had  not  produced  a  single  work 
of  any  repute  in  literature.  We  were 
almost  wholly  dependent  on  imported 
books.  Even  our  Bibles  and  Testa 
ments  were,  for  the  most  part,  printed 
abroad.  The  book  trade  is  now  one  of 
the  greatest  branches  of  business,  and 
many  works  of  standard  value,  and  of 
high  reputation  in  Europe  as  well  as  at 
home,  have  been  produced  by  American 
authors  in  every  department  of  literary 
composition. 

While  the  country  has  been  expanding 
in  dimensions,  in  numbers,  and  in  wealth, 
the  government  has  applied  a  wise  fore 
cast  in  the  adoption  of  measures  neces 
sary,  when  the  world  shall  no  longer  be 
at  peace,  to  maintain  the  national  honor, 
whether  by  appropriate  displays  of  vigor 
abroad,  or  by  well-adapted  means  of 
defence  at  home.  A  navy,  which  has 
so  often  illustrated  our  history  by  heroic 
achievements,  though  in  peaceful  times 
restrained  in  its  operations  to  narrow 
limits,  possesses,  in  its  admirable  ele 
ments,  the  means  of  great  and  sudden 
expansion,  and  is  justly  looked  upon  by 
the  nation  as  the  right  arm  of  its  power. 
An  army,  still  smaller,  but  not  less  per 
fect  in  its  detail,  has  on  many  a  field 
exhibited  the  military  aptitudes  and 
prowess  of  the  race,  and  demonstrated 
the  wisdom  which  has  presided  over  its 
organization  and  government. 

While  the  gradual  and  slow  enlarge 
ment  of  these  respective  military  arms 
has  been  regulated  by  a  jealous  watch 
fulness  over  the  public  treasure,  there 
has,  neverthless,  been  freely  given  all 
that  was  needed  to  perfect  their  quality ; 
and  each  affords  the  nucleus  of  any  en 
largement  that  the  public  exigencies 
may  demand,  from  the  millions  of  brave 
hearts  and  strong  arms  upon  the  land 
and  water. 

The  navy  is  the  active  and  aggressive 
element  of  national  defence;  and,  let 
loose  from  our  own  sea-coast,  must  dis 


play  its  power  in  the  seas  and  channels 
of  the  enemy.  To  do  this,  it  need  not 
be  large;  and  it  can  never  be  large 
enough  to  defend  by  its  presence  at 
home  all  our  ports  and  harbors.  But, 
in  the  absence  of  the  navy,  what  can 
the  regular  army  or  the  volunteer  militia 
do  against  the  enemy's  line-of-battle 
ships  and  steamers,  falling  without  notice 
upon  our  coast?  What  will  guard  our 
cities  from  tribute,  our  merchant-vessels 
and  our  navy-yards  from  conflagration? 
Here,  again,  we  see  a  wise  forecast  in 
the  system  of  defensive  measures  which, 
especially  since  the  close  of  the  war 
with  Great  Britain,  has  been  steadily 
followed  by  our  government. 

While  the  perils  from  which  our  great 
establishments  had  just  escaped  were  yet 
fresh  in  remembrance,  a  system  of  forti 
fications  was  begun,  which  now,  though 
not  quite  complete,  fences  in  our  im 
portant  points  with  impassable  strength. 
More  than  four  thousand  cannon  may  at 
any  moment,  within  strong  and  perma 
nent  works,  arranged  with  all  the  ad 
vantages  and  appliances  that  the  art 
affords,  be  turned  to  the  protection  of 
the  sea-coast,  and  be  served  by  the  men 
whose  hearths  they  shelter.  Happy  for 
us  that  it  is  so,  since  these  are  means  of 
security  that  time  alone  can  supply; 
and  since  the  improvements  of  mari 
time  warfare,  by  making  distant  expe 
ditions  easy  and  speedy,  have  made 
them  more  probable,  and  at  the  same 
time  more  difficult  to  anticipate  and 
provide  against.  The  cost  of  fortifying 
all  the  important  points  of  our  coast,  as 
well  upon  the  whole  Atlantic  as  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  will  not  exceed  the 
amount  expended  on  the  fortifications 
of  Paris. 

In  this  connection  one  most  important 
facility  in  the  defence  of  the  country  is 
not  to  be  overlooked ;  it  is  the  extreme 
rapidity  with  which  the  soldiers  of  the 
army,  and  any  number  of  the  militia 
corps,  may  be  brought  to  any  point 
where  a  hostile  attack  shall  at  any  time 
be  made  or  threatened. 

And  this  extension  of  territory  em 
braced  within  the  United  States,  in 
crease  of  its  population,  commerce,  and 


650 


THE   ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


manufactures,  development  of  its  re 
sources  by  canals  and  railroads,  and  ra 
pidity  of  intercommunication  by  means 
of  steam  and  electricity,  have  all  been 
accomplished  without  overthrow  of,  or 
danger  to,  the  public  liberties,  by  any 
assumption  of  military  power;  and,  in 
deed,  without  any  permanent  increase 
of  the  army,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
frontier  defence,  and  of  affording  a 
slight  guard  to  the  public  property ;  or 
of  the  navy,  any  further  than  to  assure 
the  navigator  that,  in  whatsoever  sea  he 
shall  sail  his  ship,  he  is  protected  by  the 
stars  and  stripes  of  his  country.  This, 
too,  has  been  done  without  the  shedding 
of  a  drop  of  blood  for  treason  or  rebel 
lion  ;  while  systems  of  popular  represen 
tation  have  regularly  been  supported  in 
the  State  governments  and  in  the  general 
government;  while  laws,  national  and 
State,  of  such  a  character  have  been 
passed,  and  have  been  so  wisely  admin 
istered,  that  I  may  stand  up  here  to 
day,  and  declare,  as  I  now  do  declare, 
in  the  face  of  all  the  intelligent  of  the 
age,  that,  for  the  period  which  has 
elapsed  from  the  day  that  Washing 
ton  laid  the  foundation  of  this  Capitol 
to  the  present  time,  there  has  been  no 
country  upon  earth  in  which  life,  liberty, 
and  property  have  been  more  amply  and 
steadily  secured,  or  more  freely  enjoyed, 
than  in  these  United  States  of  America. 
Who  is  there  that  will  deny  this ?  Who  is 
there  prepared  with  a  greater  or  a  better 
example?  Who  is  there  that  can  stand 
upon  the  foundation  of  facts,  acknowl 
edged  or  proved,  and  assert  that  these 
our  republican  institutions  have  not  an 
swered  the  true  ends  of  government  be 
yond  all  precedent  in  human  history? 

There  is  yet  another  view.  There  are 
still  higher  considerations.  Man  is  an 
intellectual  being,  destined  to  immor 
tality.  There  is  a  spirit  in  him,  and 
the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given 
him  understanding.  Then  only  is  he 
tending  toward  his  own  destiny,  while 
he  seeks  for  knowledge  and  virtue,  for 
the  will  of  his  Maker,  and  for  just  con 
ceptions  of  his  own  duty.  Of  all  impor 
tant  questions,  therefore,  let  this,  the 
most  important  of  all,  be  first  asked 


and  first  answered:  In  what  country  of 
the  habitable  globe,  of  great  extent 
and  large  population,  are  the  means  of 
knowledge^  the  most  generally  diffused 
and  enjoyed  among  the  people?  This 
question  admits  of  one,  and  only  one, 
answer.  It  is  here ;  it  is  here  in  these 
United  States ;  it  is  among  the  descend 
ants  of  those  who  settled  at  Jamestown ; 
of  those  who  were  pilgrims  on  the  shore 
of  Plymouth;  and  of  those  other  races 
of  men,  who, 'in  subsequent  times,  have 
become  joined  in  this  great  American 
family.  Let  one  fact,  incapable  of  doubt 
or  dispute,  satisfy  every  mind  on  this 
point.  The  population  of  the  United 
States  is  twenty-three  millions.  Now, 
take  the  map  of  the  continent  of  Europe 
and  spread  it  out  before  you.  Take 
your  scale  and  your  dividers,  and  lay  off 
in  one  area,  in  any  shape  you  please,  a 
triangle,  square,  circle,  parallelogram, 
or  trapezoid,  and  of  an  extent  that  shall 
contain  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions 
of  people,  and  there  will  be  found  within 
the  United  States  more  persons  who  do 
habitually  read  and  write  than  can  be 
embraced  within  the  lines  of  your  demar 
cation. 

But  there  is  something  even  more  than 
this.  Man  is  not  only  an  intellectual, 
but  he  is  also  a  religious  being,  and  his 
religious  feelings  and  habits  require  cul 
tivation.  Let  the  religious  element  in 
man's  nature  be  neglected,  let  him  be 
influenced  by  no  higher  motives  than 
low  self-interest,  and  subjected  to  no 
stronger  restraint  than  the  limits  of  civil 
authority,  and  he  becomes  the  creature 
of  selfish  passion  or  blind  fanaticism. 

The  spectacle  of  a  nation  powerful 
and  enlightened,  but  without  Christian 
faith,  has  been  presented,  almost  within 
our  own  day,  as  a  warning  beacon  for 
the  nations. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  cultivation  of 
the  religious  sentiment  represses  licen 
tiousness,  incites  to  general  benevolence 
and  the  practical  acknowledgment  of  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  inspires  respect  for 
law  and  order,  and  gives  strength  to  the 
whole  social  fabric,  at  the  same  time 
that  it  conducts  the  human  soul  upward 
to  the  Author  of  its  being. 


THE  ADDITION   TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


651 


Now,  I  think  it  may  be  stated  with 
truth,  that  in  no  country,  in  proportion 
to  its  population,  are  there  so  many  be 
nevolent  establishments  connected  with 
religious  instruction,  Bible,  Missionary, 
and  Tract  Societies,  supported  by  public 
and  private  contributions,  as  in  our  own. 
There  are  also  institutions  for  the  educa 
tion  of  the  blind,  of  idiots,  of  the  deaf 
and  dumb ;  for  the  reception  of  orphan 
and  destitute  children,  and  the  insane; 
for  moral  reform,  designed  for  children 
and  females  respectively;  and  institu 
tions  for  the  reformation  of  criminals; 
not  to  speak  of  those  numerous  estab 
lishments,  in  almost  every  county  and 
town  in  the  United  States,  for  the  recep 
tion  of  the  aged,  infirm,  and  destitute 
poor,  many  of  whom  have  fled  to  our 
shores  to  escape  the  poverty  and  wretch 
edness  of  their  condition  at  home. 

In  the  United  States  there  is  no  church 
establishment  or  ecclesiastical  authority 
founded  by  government.  Public  worship 
is  maintained  either  by  voluntary  asso 
ciations  and  contributions,  or  by  trusts 
and  donations  of  a  charitable  origin. 

Now,  I  think  it  safe  to  say,  that  a 
greater  portion  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  attend  public  worship, 
decently  clad,  well  behaved,  and  well 
seated,  than  of  any  other  country  of  the 
civilized  world.  Edifices  of  religion  are 
seen  everywhere.  Their  aggregate  cost 
would  amount  to  an  immense  sum  of 
money.  They  are,  in  general,  kept  in 
good  repair,  and  consecrated  to  the  pur 
poses  of  public  worship.  In  these  edi 
fices  the  people  regularly  assemble  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  which,  by  all  classes, 
is  sacredly  set  apart  for  rest  from  secular 
employment  and  for  religious  medita 
tion  and  worship,  to  listen  to  the  read 
ing  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  dis 
courses  from  pious  ministers  of  the  sev 
eral  denominations. 

This  attention  to  the  wants  of  the  in 
tellect  and  of  the  soul,  as  manifested  by 
the  voluntary  support  of  schools  and 
colleges,  of  churches  and  benevolent  in 
stitutions,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
characteristics  of  the  American  people, 
not  less  strikingly  exhibited  in  the  new 
than  in  the  older  settlements  of  the 


country.  On  the  spot  where  the  first 
trees  of  the  forest  were  felled,  near  the 
log  cabins  of  the  pioneers,  are  to  be  seen 
rising  together  the  church  and  the  school- 
house.  So  has  it  been  from  the  begin 
ning,  and  God  grant  that  it  may  thus 
continue ! 

"On  other  shores,  above  their  mouldering  towns, 
In  sullen  pomp,  the  tall  cathedral  frowns; 
Simple  and  frail,  our  lowly  temples  throw 
Their  slender  shadows  on  the  paths  below; 
Scarce  steal  the  winds,  that  sweep  the  wood 
land  tracks, 

The  larch's  perfume  from  the  settler's  axe, 
Ere,  like  a  vision  of  the  morning  air, 
His  slight-framed  steeple  marks  the  house  of 

prayer. 
Yet  Faith's  pure  hymn,  beneath  its  shelter 

rude, 

Breathes  out  as  sweetly  to  the  tangled  wood, 
As  where  the  rays  through  blazing  oriels  pour 
On  marble  shaft  and  tessellated  floor." 

Who  does  not  admit  that  this  unpar 
alleled  growth  in  prosperity  and  renown 
is  the  result,  under  Providence,  of  the 
union  of  these  States  under  a  general 
Constitution,  which  guarantees  to  each 
State  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  to  every  man  the  enjoyment  of  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness, 
free  from  civil  tyranny  or  ecclesiastical 
domination? 

And,  to  bring  home  this  idea  to  the 
present  occasion,  who  does  not  feel  that, 
when  President  Washington  laid  his 
hand  on  the  foundation  of  the  first  Cap 
itol,  he  performed  a  great  work  of  per 
petuation  of  the  Union  and  the  Consti 
tution?  Who  does  not  feel  that  this 
seat  of  the  general  government,  health 
ful  in  its  situation,  central  in  its  posi 
tion,  near  the  mountains  whence  gush 
springs  of  wonderful  virtue,  teeming 
with  Nature's  richest  products,  and  yet 
not  far  from  the  bays  and  the  great 
estuaries  of  the  sea,  easily  accessible 
and  generally  agreeable  in  climate  and 
association,  does  give  strength  to  the 
union  of  these  States?  that  this  city, 
bearing  an  immortal  name,  with  its 
broad  streets  and  avenues,  its  public 
squares  and  magnificent  edifices  of  the 
general  government,  erected  for  the  pur 
pose  of  carrying  on  within  them  the  im 
portant  business  of  the  several  depart- 


652 


THE  ADDITION   TO   THE  CAPITOL. 


merits,  for  the  reception  of  wonderful 
and  curious  inventions,  for  the  preser 
vation  of  the  records  of  American  learn 
ing  and  genius,  of  extensive  collections 
of  the  products  of  nature  and  art,  brought 
hither  for  study  and  comparison  from 
all  parts  of  the  world,  —  adorned  with 
numerous  churches,  and  sprinkled  over, 
I  am  happy  to  say,  with  many  public 
schools,  where  all  the  children  of  the 
city,  without  distinction,  have  the  means 
of  obtaining  a  good  education,  and  with 
academies  and  colleges,  professional 
schools  and  public  libraries,  —  should 
continue  to  receive,  as  it  has  heretofore 
received,  the  fostering  care  of  Congress, 
and  should  be  regarded  as  the  permanent 
seat  of  the  national  government?  Here, 
too,  a  citizen  of  the  great  republic  of 
letters,1  a  republic  which  knows  not  the 
metes  and  bounds  of  political  geogra 
phy,  has  prophetically  indicated  his 
conviction  that  America  is  to  exercise 
a  wide  and  powerful  influence  in  the 
intellectual  world,  by  founding  in  this 
city,  as  a  commanding  position  in  the 
field  of  science  and  literature,  and 
placing  under  the  guardianship  of  the 
government,  an  institution  "for  the 
increase  and  diffusion  of  knowledge 
among  men." 

With  each  succeeding  year  new  inter 
est  is  added  to  the  spot;  it  becomes 
connected  with  all  the  historical  associa 
tions  of  our  country,  with  her  states 
men  and  her  orators,  and,  alas!  its  cem 
etery  is  annually  enriched  by  the  ashes 
of  her  chosen  sons. 

Before  us  is  the  broad  and  beautiful 
river,  separating  two  of  the  original 
thirteen  States,  which  a  late  President, 
a  man  of  determined  purpose  and  inflex 
ible  will,  but  patriotic  heart,  desired  to 
span  with  arches  of  ever-enduring  gran 
ite,  symbolical  of  the  firmly  cemented 
union  of  the  North  and  the  South.  That 
President  was  General  Jackson. 

On  its  banks  repose  the  ashes  of  the 
Father  of  his  Country,  and  at  our  side, 
by  a  singular  felicity  of  position,  over 
looking  the  city  which  he  designed,  and 

1  Hugh  Smithson,  whose  munificent  bequest 
has  been  applied  to  the  foundation  of  "  The 
Smithsonian  Institution." 


which  bears  his  name,  rises  to  his  mem 
ory  the  marble  column,  sublime  in  it3 
simple  grandeur,  and  fitly  intended  to 
reach  a  Iqftier  height  than  any  similar 
structure  on  the  surface  of  the  whole 
earth. 

Let  the  votive  offerings  of  his  grate 
ful  countrymen  be  freely  contributed  to 
carry  this  monument  higher  and  still 
higher.  May  I  say,  as  on  another  occa 
sion,  u  Let  it  rise;  let  it  rise  till  it  meet 
the  sun  in  his  coming;  let  the  earliest 
light  of  the  morning  gild  it,  and  parting 
day  linger  and  play  on  its  summit!  " 

Fellow-citizens,  what  contemplations 
are  awakened  in  our  minds  as  we  assem 
ble  here  to  re-enact  a  scene  like  that 
performed  by  Washington !  Methinks 
I  see  his  venerable  form -now  before  me, 
as  presented  in  the  glorious  statue  by 
Houdon,  now  in  the  Capitol  of  Virginia. 
He  is  dignified  and  grave ;  but  concern 
and  anxiety  seem  to  soften  the  linea 
ments  of  his  countenance.  The  govern 
ment  over  which  he  presides  is  yet  in 
the  crisis  of  experiment.  Xot  free  from 
troubles  at  home,  he  sees  the  world  in 
commotion  and  in  arms  all  around  him. 
He  sees  that  imposing  foreign  powers 
are  half  disposed  to  try  the  strength  of 
the  recently  established  American  gov 
ernment.  We  perceive  that  mighty 
thoughts,  mingled  with  fears  as  well  as 
with  hopes,  are  struggling  within  him. 
He  heads  a  short  procession  over  these 
then  naked  fields;  he  crosses  yonder 
stream  on  a  fallen  tree;  he  ascends  to 
the  top  of  this  eminence,  whose  original 
oaks  of  the  forest  stand  as  thick  around 
him  as  if  the  spot  had  been  devoted  to 
Druidical  worship,  and  here  he  performs 
the  appointed  duty  of  the  day. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  if  this  vis 
ion  were  a  reality;  if  Washington  actu 
ally  were  now  amongst  us,  and  if  he 
could  draw  around  him  the  shades  of 
the  great  public  men  of  his  own  day, 
patriots  and  warriors,  orators  and  states 
men,  and  were  to  address  us  in  their 
presence,  would  he  not  say  to  us:  "  Ye 
men  of  this  generation,  I  rejoice  and 
thank  God  for  being  able  to  see  that  our 
labors  and  toils  and  sacrifices  were  not 
in  vain.  You  are  prosperous,  you  are 


THE   ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


653 


happy,  you  are  grateful ;  the  fire  of  lib 
erty  burns  brightly  and  steadily  in  your 
hearts,  while  DUTY  and  the  LAW  re 
strain  it  from  bursting  forth  in  wild 
and  destructive  conflagration.  Cherish 
liberty,  as  you  love  it;  cherish  its  secu 
rities,  as  you  wish  to  preserve  it.  Main 
tain  the  Constitution  which  we  labored 
so  painfully  to  establish',  and  which  has 
been  to  you  such  a  source  of  inestima 
ble  blessings.  Preserve  the  union  of 
the  States,  cemented  as  it  was  by  our 
prayers,  our  tears,  and  our  blood.  Be 
true  to  God,  to  your  country,  and  to 
your  duty.  So  shall  the  whole  Eastern 
world  follow  the  morning  sun  to  con 
template  you  as  a  nation;  so  shall  all 
generations  honor  you,  as  they  honor 
us;  and  so  shall  that  Almighty  Power 
which  so  graciously  protected  us,  and 
which  now  protects  you,  shower  its 
everlasting  blessings  upon  you  and  your 
posterity." 

Great  Father  of  your  Country!  we 
heed  your  words ;  we  feel  their  force  as 
if  you  now  uttered  them  with  lips  of 
flesh  and  blood.  Your  example  teaches 
us,  your  affectionate  addresses  teach  us, 
your  public  life  teaches  us,  your  sense 
of  the  value  of  the  blessings  of  the 
Union.  Those  blessings  our  fathers 
have  tasted,  and  we  have  tasted,  and 
still  taste.  Nor  do  we  intend  that  those 
who  come  after  us  shall  be  denied  the 
same,  high  fruition.  Our  honor  as  well 
as  our  happiness  is  concerned.  We  can 
not,  we  dare  not,  we  will  not,  betray 
our  sacred  trust.  We  will  not  filch 
from  posterity  the  treasure  placed  in 
our  hands  to  be  transmitted  to  other 
generations.  The  bow  that  gilds  the 
clouds  in  the  heavens,  the  pillars  that 
uphold  the  firmament,  may  disappear 
and  fall  away  in  the  hour  appointed  by 
the  will  of  God;  but  until  that  day 
comes,  or  so  long  as  our  lives  may  last, 
no  ruthless  hand  shall  undermine  that 
bright  arch  of  Union  and  Liberty  which 
spans  the  continent  from  Washington  to 
California. 

Fellow-citizens,  we  must  sometimes 
be  tolerant  to  folly,  and  patient  at  the 
sight  of  the  extreme  waywardness  of 
men ;  but  I  confess  that,  when  I  reflect 


on  the  renown  of  our  past  history,  on 
our  present  prosperity  and  greatness, 
and  on  what  the  future  hath  yet  to  un 
fold,  and  when  I  see  that  there  are  men 
who  can  find  in  all  this  nothing  good, 
nothing  valuable,  nothing  truly  glorious, 
I  feel  that  all  their  reason  has  fled  away 
from  them,  and  left  the  entire  control 
over  their  judgment  and  their  actions 
to  insanity  and  fanaticism ; "  and  more 
than  all,  fellow-citizens,  if  the  purposes 
of  fanatics  and  disunionists  should  be 
accomplished,  the  patriotic  and  intelli 
gent  of  our  generation  would  seek  to 
hide  themselves  from  the  scorn  of  the 
world,  and  go  about  to  find  dishonorable 
graves. 

Fellow-citizens,  take  courage;  be  of 
good  cheer.  We  shall  come  to  no  such 
ignoble  end.  We  shall  live,  and  not 
die.  During  the  period  allotted  to  our 
several  lives,  we  shall  continue  to  re 
joice  in  the  return  of  this  anniversary. 
The  ill-omened  sounds  of  fanaticism 
will  be  hushed;  the  ghastly  spectres  of 
Secession  and  Disunion  will  disappear; 
and  the  enemies  of  united  constitutional 
liberty,  if  their  hatred  cannot  be  ap 
peased,  may  prepare  to  have  their  eye 
balls  seared  as  they  behold  the  steady 
flight  of  the  American  eagle,  on  his 
burnished  wings,  for  years  and  years  to 
come. 

President  Fillmore,  it  is  your  singu 
larly  good  fortune  to  perform  an  act 
such  as  that  which  the  earliest  of  your 
predecessors  performed  fifty-eight  years 
ago.  You  stand  where  he  stood;  you 
lay  your  hand  on~the  corner-stone  of  a 
building  designed  greatly  to  extend  that 
whose  corner-stone  he  laid.  Changed, 
changed  is  every  thing  around.  The 
same  sun,  indeed,  shone  upon  his  head 
which  now  shines  upon  yours.  The 
same  broad  river  rolled  at  his  feet,  and 
bathes  his  last  resting-place,  that  now 
rolls  at  yours.  But  the  site  of  this  city 
was  then  mainly  an  open  field.  Streets 
and  avenues  have  since  been  laid  out  and 
completed,  squares  and  public  grounds 
enclosed  and  ornamented,  until  the  city 
which  bears  his  name,  although  com 
paratively  inconsiderable  in  numbers 
and  wealth,  has  become  quite  fit  to  be 


654 


THE  ADDITION  TO   THE   CAPITOL. 


the  seat  of  government  of  a  great  and 
united  people. 

Sir,  may  the  consequences  of  the  duty 
which  you  perform  so  auspiciously  to 
day,  equal  those  which  flowed  from  his 
act.  Nor  this  only ;  may  the  principles 
of  your  administration,  and  the  wisdom 
of  your  political  conduct,  be  such,  as 
that  the  world  of  the  present  day,  and 
all  history  hereafter,  may  be  at  no  loss 
to  perceive  what  example  you  have  made 
your  study. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  now  bring  this  ad 
dress  to  a  close,  by  expressing  to  you, 
in  the  words  of  the  great  Roman  orator, 
the  deepest  wish  of  my  heart,  and  which 
I  know  dwells  deeply  in  the  hearts  of 
all  who  hear  me:  "  Duo  modo  haec  opto; 


UllUm,  UT  MORIENS  POPULUM  RoMANUM 

LIBERUM  RELINQUAM  ;  hoc  mihi  majus 
a  diis  immortalibus  dari  nihil  potest: 
alterum,  v£  ita  cuique  eveniat,  ut  de 
republica  quisque  mereatur." 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  with  hearts 
void  of  hatred,  envy,  and  malice  towards 
our  own  countrymen,  or  any  of  them,  or 
towards  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  other 
governments,  or  towards  any  member 
of  the  great  family  of  man ;  but  exult 
ing,  nevertheless,  in  our  own  peace,  se 
curity,  and  happiness,  in  the  grateful 
remembrance  of  the  past,  and  the  glo 
rious  hopes  of  the  future,  let  us  return 
to  our  homes,  and  with  all  humility  and 
devotion  offer  our  thanks  to  the  Father 
of  all  our  mercies,  political,  social,  and 
religious. 


APPENDIX. 


IMPRESSMENT. 


Mr.  Webster  to  Lord  Ashburton. 

Department  of  State.  Washington, 
August  8,  1842. 

MY  LORD,  —  We  have  had  several  con 
versations  on  the  subject  of  impressment, 
but  I  do  not  understand  that  your  Lordship 
has  instructions  from  your  government  to 
negotiate  upon  it,  nor  does  the  government 
of  the  United  States  see  any  utility  in 
opening  such  negotiation,  unless  the  Brit 
ish  government  is  prepared  to  renounce  the 
practice  in  all  future  wars. 

No  cause  has  produced  to  so  great  an 
extent,  and  for  so  long  a  period,  disturbing 
and  irritating  influences  on  the  political  re 
lations  of  the  United  States  and  England, 
as  the  impressment  of  seamen  by  British 
cruisers  from  American  merchant-vessels. 

From  the  commencement  of  the  French 
Revolution  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  war 
between  the  two  countries  in  1812,  hardly 
a  year  elapsed  without  loud  complaint  and 
earnest  remonstrance.  A  deep  feeling  of 
opposition  to  the  right  claimed,  and  to  the 
practice  exercised  under  it,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  exercised  without  the  least  regard 
to  what  justice  and  humanity  would  have 
dictated,  even  if  the  right  itself  had  been 
admitted,  took  possession  of  the  public 
mind  of  America,  and  this  feeling,  it  is 
well  known,  co-operated  most  powerfully 
with  other  causes  to  produce  the  state  of 
hostilities  whioh  ensued. 

At  different  periods,  both  before  and 
since  the  war,  negotiations  have  taken 
place  between  the  two  governments,  with 
the  hope  of  rinding  some  means  of  quiet 
ing  these  complaints.  At  some  times,  the 
effectual  abolition  of  the  practice  has  been 
requested  and  treated  of ;  at  other  times,  its 
temporary  suspension  ;  and  at  other  times, 
again,  the  limitation  of  its  exercise,  and 
some  security  against  its  enormous  abuses. 

A  common  destiny  has  attended  these 


efforts  ;  tht/  have  all  failed.  The  ques 
tion  stands  at  this  moment  where  it  stood 
fifty  years  ago.  The  nearest  approach  to 
a  settlement  was  a  convention  proposed  in 
1803,  and  which  had  come  to  the  point  of 
signature,  when  it  was  broken  off  in  con- 
sequence  of  the  British  government  insist 
ing  that  the  narrow  seas  should  be  expressly 
excepted  out  of  the  sphere  over  which  the 
contemplated  stipulation  against  impress 
ment  should  extend.  The  American  Min 
ister,  Mr.  King,  regarded  this  exception  as 
quite  inadmissible,  and  chose  rather  to 
abandon  the  negotiation  than  to  acquiesce 
in  the  doctrine  which  it  proposed  to  es 
tablish. 

England  asserts  the  right  of  impressing 
British  subjects,  in  time  of  war,  out  of 
neutral  merchant-vessels,  and  of  deciding 
by  her  visiting  officers  who,  among  the 
crews  of  such  merchant-vessels,  are  British 
subjects.  She  asserts  this  as  a  legal  exer 
cise  of  the  prerogative  of  the  crown ;  which 
prerogative  is  alleged  to  be  founded  on  the 
English  law  of  the  perpetual  and  indis 
soluble  allegiance  of  the  subject,  and  his 
obligation  under  all  circumstances,  and  for 
his  whole  life,  to  render  military  service  to 
the  crown  whenever  required. 

This  statement,  made  in  the  words  of 
eminent  British  jurists,  shows  at  once  that 
the  English  claim  is  far  broader  than  the 
basis  or  platform  on  which  it  is  raised. 
The  law  relied  on  is  English  law ;  the  obli 
gations  insisted  on  are  obligations  existing 
between  the  crown  of  England  and  its  sub 
jects.  This  law  and  these  obligations,  it  is 
admitted,  may  be  such  as  England  may 
choose  they  shall  be.  But  then  they  must 
be  confined  to  the  parties.  Impressment 
of  seamen  out  of  and  beyond  English  ter 
ritory,  and  from  on  board  the  ships  of 
other  nations,  is  an  interference  with  the 
rights  of  other  nations ;  is  further,  there 
fore,  than  English  prerogative  can  legally 


656 


APPENDIX. 


extend;  and  is  nothing  but  an  attempt  to 
enforce  the  peculiar  law  of  England  be 
yond  the  dominions  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
crown.  The  claim  asserts  an  extra-terri 
torial  authority  for  the  law  of  British  pre 
rogative,  and  assumes  to  exercise  this  extra 
territorial  authority,  to  the  manifest  injury 
and  annoyance  of  the  citizens  and  subjects 
of  other  states,  on  board  their  own  vessels, 
on  the  high  seas. 

Every  merchant-vessel  on  the  seas  is 
rightfully  considered  as  part  of  the  terri 
tory  of  the  country  to  which  it  belongs. 
The  entry,  therefore,  into  such  vessel,  lie- 
ing  neutral,  by  a  belligerent,  is  an  act  of 
force,  and  is,  prima  facie,  a  wrong,  a  tres 
pass,  which  can  be  justified  only  when  done 
for  some  purpose  allowed  to  form  a  suffi 
cient  justification  by  the  law  of  nations. 
But  a  Britisli  cruiser  enters  an  American 
merchant-vessel  in  order  to  take  therefrom 
supposed  British  subjects;  offering  no  jus 
tification,  therefore,  under  the  law  of  na 
tions,  but  claiming  the  right  under  the  law 
of  England  respecting  the  king's  preroga 
tive.  This  cannot  be  defended.  English 
soil,  English  territory,  English  jurisdiction, 
is  the  appropriate  sphere  for  the  operation 
of  English  law.  The  ocean  is  the  sphere 
of  the  law  of  nations;  and  any  merchant- 
vessel  on  the  seas  is  by  that  law  under  the 
protection  of  the  laws  of  her  own  nation, 
and  may  claim  immunity,  unless  in  cases 
in  which  that  law  allows  her  to  be  entered 
or  visited. 

If  this  notion  of  perpetual  allegiance, 
and  the  consequent  power  of  the  preroga 
tive,  was  the  law  of  the  world  ;  if  it 
formed  part  of  the  conventional  code  of 
nations,  and  was  usually  practised,  like  the 
right  of  visiting  neutral  ships,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  discovering  and  seizing  enemy's 
property,  then  impressment  might  be  de 
fended  as  a  common  right,  and  there  would 
be  no  remedy  for  the  evil  till  the  national 
code  should  be  altered.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  the  case.  There  is  no  such  princi 
ple  incorporated  into  the  code  of  nations. 
The  doctrine  stands  only  as  English  law, 
not  as  a  national  law  ;  and  English  law  can 
not  be  of  force  beyond  English  dominion. 
Whatever  duties  or  relations  that  law 
creates  between  the  sovereign  and  his  sub 
jects  can  be  enforced  and  maintained  only 
within  the  realm,  or  proper  possessions  or 
territory  of  the  sovereign.  There  may  be 
quite  as  just  a  prerogative  right  to  the 
property  of  subjects  as  to  their  personal 
services,  in  an  exigency  of  the  state ;  but 


no  government  thinks  of  controlling  by  its 
own  laws  property  of  its  subjects  situated 
abroad ;  much  less  does  any  government 
think  of  entering  the  territory  of  another 
power  for  tlie  purpose  of  seizing  such  prop 
erty  and  applying  it  to  its  own  uses.  As 
laws,  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  of 
England  have  no  obligation  on  persons  or 
property  domiciled  or  situated  abroad. 

"  When,  therefore,"  says  an  authority 
not  unknown  or  unregarded  on  either  side 
of  the  Atlantic,  "  we  speak  of  the  right  of 
a  state  to  bind  its  own  native  subjects 
everywhere,  we  speak  only  of  its  own 
claim  and  exercise  of  sovereignty  over 
them  when  they  return  within  its  own  ter 
ritorial  jurisdiction,  and  not  of  its  right  to 
compel  or  require  obedience  to  such  laws, 
on  the  part  of  other  nations,  within  their 
own  territorial  sovereignty.  On  the  con 
trary,  every  nation  has  an  exclusive  right 
to  regulate  persons  and  things  within  its 
own  territory,  according  to  its  sovereign 
will  and  public  polity." 

The  good  sense  of  these  principles,  their 
remarkable  pertinency  to  the  subject  now 
under  consideration,  and  the  extraordinary 
consequences  resulting  from  the  British  doc 
trine,  are  signally  manifested  by  that  which 
we  see  taking  place  every  day.  England 
acknowledges  herself  overburdened  with 
population  of  the  poorer  classes.  Every 
instance  of  the  emigration  of  persons  of 
those  classes  is  regarded  by  her  as  a  bene 
fit.  England,  therefore,  encourages  emi 
gration  ;  means  are  notoriously  supplied 
to  emigrants,  to  assist  their  conveyance, 
from  public  funds;  and  the  New  World, 
and  most  especially  these  United  States, 
receive  the  many  thousands  of  her  subjects 
thus  ejected  from  the  bosom  of  their  native 
land  by  the  necessities  of  their  condition. 
They  come  away  from  poverty  and  distress 
in  over-crowded  cities,  to  seek  employment, 
comfort,  and  new  homes  in  a  country  of 
free  institutions,  possessed  by  a  kindred 
race,  speaking  their  own  language,  and 
having  laws  and  usages  in  many  respects 
like  those  to  which  they  have  been  accus 
tomed  ;  and  a  country  which,  upon  the 
whole,  is  found  to  possess  more  attractions 
for  persons  of  their  character  and  condi 
tion  than  any  other  on  the  face  of  the 
globe.  It  is  stated  that,  in  the  quarter  of 
the  year  ending  with  June  last,  more  than 
twenty-six  thousand  emigrants  left  the  sin 
gle  port  of  Liverpool  for  the  United  States, 
being  four  or  five  times  as  many  as  left  the 
same  port  within  the  same  period  for  the 


IMPRESSMENT. 


657 


British  colonies  and  all  other  parts  of  the 
world.  Of  these  crowds  of  emigrants, 
many  arrive  in  our  cities  in  circumstances 
of  great  destitution,  and  the  charities  of 
the  country,  both  public  and  private,  are 
severely  taxed  to  relieve  their  immediate 
wants.  In  time  they  mingle  with  the  new 
community  in  which  they  find  themselves, 
and  seek  means  of  living.  Some  find  em 
ployment  in  the  cities,  others  go  to  the 
frontiers,  to  cultivate  lands  reclaimed  from 
the  forest ;  and  a  greater  or  less  number  of 
the  residue,  becoming  in  time  naturalized 
citizens,  enter  into  the  merchant  service 
under  the  flag  of  their  adopted  country. 

Now,  my  Lord,  if  war  should  break  out 
between  England  and  a  European  power, 
can  any  thing  be  more  unjust,  any  thing 
more  irreconcilable  to  the  general  senti 
ments  of  mankind,  than  that  England 
should  seek  out  these  persons,  thus  en 
couraged  by  her  and  compelled  by  their 
own  condition  to  leave  their  native  homes, 
tear  them  away  from  their  new  employ 
ments,  their  new  political  relations,  and 
their  domestic  connections,  and  force  them 
to  undergo  the  dangers  and  hardships  of 
military  service  for  a  country  which  has 
thus  ceased  to  be  their  own  country  ?  Cer 
tainly,  certainly,  my  Lord,  there  can  be  but 
one  answer  to  this  question.  Is  it  not  far 
more  reasonable  that  England  should  either 
prevent  such  emigration  of  her  subjects,  or 
that,  if  she  encourage  and  promote  it,  she 
should  leave  them,  not  to  the  embroilment 
of  a  double  and  contradictory  allegiance, 
but  to  their  own  voluntary  choice,  to  form 
such  relations,  political  or  social,  as  they 
see  fit,  in  the  country  where  they  are  to 
find  their  bread,  and  to  the  laws  and  insti 
tutions  of  which  they  are  to  look  for  de 
fence  and  protection  ? 

A  question  of  such  serious  importance 
ought  now  to  be  put  at  rest.  If  the  United 
States  give  shelter  and  protection  to  those 
whom  the  policy  of  England  annually  casts 
upon  their  shores,  —  if,  by  the  benign  in 
fluences  of  their  government  and  institu 
tions,  and  by  the  happy  condition  of  the 
country,  those  emigrants  become  raised 
from  poverty  to  comfort,  finding  it  easy 
even  to  become  landholders,  and  being 
allowed  to  partake  in  the  enjoyment  of  all 
civil  rights,  —  if  all  this  may  be  done,  (and 
all  this  is  done,  under  the  countenance  and 
encouragement  of  England  herself,)  is  it 
not  high  time  that,  yielding  that  which  had 
its  origin  in  feudal  ideas  as  inconsistent 
with  the  present  state  of  society,  and  espe- 


daily  with  the  intercourse  and  relations 
subsisting  between  the  Old  World  and  the 
New,  England  should  at  length  formally 
disclaim  all  right  to  the  services  of  such 
persons,  and  renounce  all  control  over  their 
conduct  ? 

But  impressment  is  subject  to  objections 
of  a  much  wider  range.  If  it  could  be 
justified  in  its  application  to  those  who  are 
declared  to  be  its  only  objects,  it  still  re 
mains  true  that,  in  its  exercise,  it  touches 
the  political  rights  of  other  governments, 
and  endangers  the  security  of  their  own 
native  subjects  and  citizens.  The  sover 
eignty  of  the  state  is  concerned  in  maintain 
ing  its  exclusive  jurisdiction  and  possession 
over  its  merchant-ships  on  the  seas,  except 
so  far  as  the  law  of  nations  justifies  in 
trusion  upon  that  possession  for  special  pur 
poses  ;  and  all  experience  has  shown,  that 
no  member  of  a  crew,  wherever  born,  is 
safe  against  impressment  when  a  ship  is 
visited. 

The  evils  and  injuries  resulting  from  the 
actual  practice  can  hardly  be  overstated, 
and  have  ever  proved  themselves  to  be  such 
as  should  lead  to  its  relinquishment,  even  if 
it  were  founded  in  any  defensible  principle. 
The  difficulty  of  discriminating  between 
English  subjects  and  American  citizens  has 
always  been  found  to  be  great,  even  when 
an  honest  purpose  of  discrimination  has 
existed.  But  the  lieutenant  of  a  man-of- 
war,  having  necessity  for  men,  is  apt  to  be 
a  summary  judge,  and  his  decisions  will  be 
quite  as  significant  of  his  own  wants  and 
his  own  power  as  of  the  truth  and  justice 
of  the  case.  An  extract  from  a  letter  of 
Mr.  King,  of  the  13th  of  April,  1797,  to  the 
American  Secretary  of  State,  shows  some 
thing  of  the  enormous  extent  of  these  wrong 
ful  seizures. 

"  Instead  of  a  few,  and  these  in  many  in 
stances  equivocal  cases,  I  have,"  says  he, 
"  since  the  month  of  July  past,  made  appli 
cation  for  the  discharge  from  British  men- 
of-war  of  two  hundred  and  seventy-one 
seamen,  who,  stating  themselves  to  be 
Americans,  have  claimed  my  interference. 
Of  this  number,  eighty  six  have  been  or 
dered  by  the  Admiralty  to  be  discharged, 
thirty-seven  more  have  been  detained  as 
British  subjects  or  as  American  volunteers, 
or  for  want  of  proof  that  they  are  Amer 
icans,  and  to  my  applications  for  the  dis 
charge  of  the  remaining  one  hundred  and 
forty -eight  I  have  received  no  answer;  the 
ships  on  board  of  which  these  seamen  were 
detained  having,  in  many  instances,  sailed 


658 


APPENDIX. 


before  an  examination  was  made  in  conse 
quence  of  my  application. 

"  It  is  certain  that  some  of  those  who 
have  applied  to  me  are  not  American  cit 
izens,  but  the  exceptions  are,  in  my  opinion, 
few,  and  the  evidence,  exclusive  of  certifi 
cates,  has  been  such  as,  in  most  cases,  to 
satisfy  me  that  the  applicants  were  real 
Americans,  who  have  been  forced  into  the 
British  service,  and  who,  with  singular  con 
stancy,  have  generally  persevered  in  refus 
ing  pay  or  bounty,  though  in  some  instances 
they  have  been  in  service  more  than  two 
years." 

But  the  injuries  of  impressment  are  by 
no  means  confined  to  its  immediate  sub 
jects,  or  the  individuals  on  whom  it  is  prac 
tised.  Vessels  suffer  from  the  \veakening 
of  their  crews,  and  voyages  are  often  de 
layed,  and  not  unfrequently  broken  up,  by 
subtraction  from  the  number  of  necessary 
hands  by  impressment.  And  what  is  of 
still  greater  and  more  general  moment,  the 
fear  of  impressment  has  been  found  to  cre 
ate  great  difficulty  in  obtaining  sailors  for 
the  American  merchant  service  in  times  of 
European  war.  Seafaring  men,  otherwise 
inclined  to  enter  into  that  service,  are,  as 
experience  has  shown,  deterred  by  the  fear 
of  finding  themselves  erelong  in  compulsory 
military  service  in  British  ships  of  war. 
Many  instances  have  occurred,  fully  estab 
lished  by  proof,  in  which  raw  seamen,  na 
tives  of  the  United  States,  fresh  from  the 
fields  of  agriculture,  entering  for  the  first 
time  on  shipboard,  have  been  impressed  be 
fore  they  made  the  land,  placed  on  the 
decks  of  British  men-of-war,  and  compelled 
to  serve  for  years  before  they  could  ob 
tain  their  release,  or  revisit  their  country 
and  their  homes.  Such  instances  become 
known,  and  their  effect  in  discouraging 
young  men  from  engaging  in  the  merchant 
service  of  their  country  can  neither  be 
doubted  nor  wondered  at.  More  than  all, 
my  Lord,  the  practice  of  impressment,  when 
ever  it  has  existed,  has  produced,  not  con 
ciliation  and  good  feeling,  but  resentment, 
exasperation,  and  animosity  between  the  two 
great  commercial  countries  of  the  world. 

In  the  calm  and  quiet  which  have  suc 
ceeded  the  late  war,  a  condition  so  favor 
able  for  dispassionate  consideration,  Eng 
land  herself  has  evidently  seen  the  harsh 
ness  of  impressment,  even  when  exercised 
on  seamen  in  her  own  merchant  service, 
and  she  has  adopted  measures  calculated, 
if  not  to  renounce  the  power  or  to  abolish 
the  practice,  yet  at  least  to  supersede  its 


necessity  by  other  moans  of  manning  the 
royal  navy  more  compatible  with  justice 
and  the  rights  of  individuals,  and  far  more 
conformable  to  the  spirit  and  sentiments  of 
the  age. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  has  used  the  oc 
casion  of  your  Lordship's  pacific  mission  to 
review  this  whole  subject,  and  to  bring  it 
to  your  notice  and  that  of  your  govern 
ment.  It  has  reflected  on  the  past,  pon 
dered  the  condition  of  the  present,  and 
endeavored  to  anticipate,  so  far  as  might 
be  in  its  power,  the  probable  future ;  and  I 
am  now  to  communicate  to  your  Lordship 
the  result  of  these  deliberations. 

The  American  government,  then,  is  pre 
pared  to  say  that  the  practice  of  impressing 
seamen  from  American  vessels  cannot  here 
after  be  allowed  to  take  place.  That  prac 
tice  is  founded  on  principles  which  it  does 
not  recognize,  and  is  invariably  attended  by 
consequences  so  unjust,  so  injurious,  and  of 
such  formidable  magnitude,  as  cannot  be 
submitted  to. 

In  the  early  disputes  between  the  two 
governments  on  this  so  long  contested  topic, 
the  distinguished  person  to  whose  hands 
were  first  intrusted  the  seals  of  this  depart 
ment1  declared,  that  "  the  simplest  rule  will 
be,  that  the  vessel  being  American  shall 
be  evidence  that  the  seamen  on  board  are 
such." 

Fifty  years'  experience,  the  utter  failure  of 
many  negotiations,  and  a  careful  reconsid 
eration,  now  had,  of  the  whole  subject,  at 
a  moment  when  the  passions  are  laid,  and 
no  present  interest  or  emergency  exists  to 
bias  the  judgment,  have  fully  convinced 
this  government  that  this  is  not  only  the 
simplest  and  best,  but  the  only  rule,  which 
can  be  adopted  and  observed,  consistently 
with  the  rights  and  honor  of  the  United 
States  and  the  security  of  their  citizens. 
That  rule  announces,  therefore,  what  will 
hereafter  be  the  principle  maintained  by 
their  government.  In  every  regularly  doc 
umented  American  merchant-vessel  the  crew 
who  navigate  it  will  find  their  protection 
in  the  flag  which  is  oter  them. 

This  announcement  is  not  made,  my 
Lord,  to  revive  useless  recollections  of  the 
past,  nor  to  stir  the  embers  from  fires  which 
have  been,  in  a  great  degree,  smothered  by 
many  years  of  peace.  Far  otherwise.  Its 
purpose  is  to  extinguish  those  fires  effectu 
ally,  before  new  incidents  arise  to  fan  them 
into  flame.  The  communication  is  in  the 
1  Mr.  Jefferson. 


IMPRESSMENT. 


659 


spirit  of  peace,  and  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
and  springs  from  a  deep  and  conscientious 
conviction  that  high  interests  of  both  na 
tions  require  this  so  long  contested  and  con 
troverted  subject  now  to  be  finally  put  to 
rest.  I  persuade  myself  that  you  will  do 
justice  to  this  frank  and  sincere  avowal  of 
motives,  and  that  you  will  communicate 
your  sentiments  in  this  respect  to  your  gov 
ernment. 

This  letter  closes,  my  Lord,  on  my  part, 
our  official  correspondence;  and  I  gladly 
use  the  occasion  to  offer  you  the  assurance 
of  my  high  and  sincere  regard. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
LORD  ASHBURTON,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Lord  Ashburton  to  Mr.  Webster. 

Washington,  August  9,  1842. 

SIR,  —  The  note  you  did  me  the  honor  of 
addressing  me  the  8th  instant,  on  the  sub 
ject  of  impressment,  shall  be  transmitted 
without  delay  to  my  government,  and  will, 
you  may  be  assured,  receive  from  them  the 
deliberate  attention  which  its  importance 
deserves. 

The  object  of  my  mission  was  mainly  the 
settlement  of  existing  subjects  of  differ 
ence  ;  and  no  differences  have  or  could 
have  arisen  of  late  years  with  respect  to 
impressment,  because  the  practice  has,  since 
the  peace,  wholly  ceased,  and  cannot,  con 
sistently  wuh  existing  laws  and  regulations 
for  manning  her  Majesty's  navy,  be,  under 
the  present  circumstances,  renewed. 

Desirous,  however,  of  looking  far  for 
ward  into  futurity  to  anticipate  even  possi 
ble  causes  of  disagreement,  and  sensible  of 
the  anxiety  of  the  American  people  on  this 
grave  subject  of  past  irritation,  I  should  be 
sorry  in  any  way  to  discourage  the  attempt 
at  some  settlement  of  it ;  and,  although 
without  authority  to  enter  upon  it  here  dur 
ing  the  limited  continuance  of  my  mission, 
I  entertain  a  confident  hope  that  this  task 
may  be  accomplished,  when  undertaken 
with  the  spirit  of  candor  and  conciliation 
which  has  marked  all  our  late  negotiations. 

It  not  being  our  intention  to  endeavor 
now  to  come  to  any  agreement  on  this  sub 
ject,  I  may  be  permitted  to  abstain  from 
noticing  at  length  your  very  ingenious  ar 
guments  relating  to  it,  and  from  discussing 
the  graver  matters  of  constitutional  and 
international  law  growing  out  of  them. 
These  sufficiently  show  that  the  question  is 
one  requiring  calm  consideration ;  though  I 


must,  at  the  same  time,  admit  that  they 
prove  a  strong  necessity  of  some  settlement 
for  the  preservation  of  that  good  under 
standing  which,  I  trust,  we  may  flatter  our 
selves  that  our  joint  labors  have  now  suc 
ceeded  in  establishing. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  laws  of  our  two 
countries  maintain  opposite  principles  re 
specting  allegiance  to  the  sovereign.  Amer 
ica,  receiving  every  year  by  thousands  the 
emigrants  of  Europe,  maintains  the  doc 
trine  suitable  to  her  condition,  of  the  right 
of  transferring  allegiance  at  will.  The 
laws  of  Great  Britain  have  maintained  from 
all  time  the  opposite  doctrine.  The  duties 
of  allegiance  are  held  to  be  indefeasible; 
and  it  is  believed  that  this  doctrine,  under 
various  modifications,  prevails  in  most,  if 
not  in  all,  the  civilized  states  of  Europe. 

Emigration,  the  modern  mode  by  which 
the  population  of  the  world  peaceably  finds 
its  level,  is  for  the  benefit  of  all,  and  emi 
nently  for  the  benefit  of  humanity.  The 
fertile  deserts  of  America  are  gradually  ad 
vancing  to  the  highest  state  of  cultivation 
and  production,  while  the  emigrant  acquires 
comfort  which  his  own  confined  home  could 
not  afford  him. 

If  there  were  any  thing  in  our  laws  or 
our  practice  on  either  side  tending  to  im 
pede  this  march  of  providential  humanity, 
we  could  not  be  too  eager  to  provide  a 
remedy ;  but  as  this  does  not  appear  to  be 
the  case,  we  may  safely  leave  this  part  of 
the  subject  without  indulging  in  abstract 
speculations  having  no  material  practical 
application  to  matters  in  discussion  be 
tween  us. 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  serious 
practical  question  does  arise,  or,  rather,  has 
existed,  from  practices  formerly  attending 
the  mode  of  manning  the  British  navy  in 
times  of  war.  The  principle  is,  that  all 
subjects  of  the  crown  are,  in  case  of  neces 
sity,  bound  to  serve  their  country,  and  the 
seafaring  man  is  naturally  taken  for  the 
naval  service.  This  is  not,  as  is  sometimes 
supposed,  any  arbitrary  principle  of  mon 
archical  government,  but  one  founded  on 
the  natural  duty  of  every  man  to  defend 
the  life  of  his  country  ;  and  all  the  analogy 
of  your  laws  would  lead  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  same  principle  would  hold  good  in 
the  United  States  if  their  geographical  posi 
tion  did  not  make  its  application  unneces 
sary. 

The  very  anomalous  condition  of  the 
two  countries  with  relation  to  each  other 
here  creates  a  serious  difficulty.  Our  peo- 


660 


APPENDIX. 


pie  are  not  distinguishable ;  and,  owing  to 
the  peculiar  habits  of  sailors,  our  vessels 
are  very  generally  manned  from  a  common 
stock.  It  is  difficult,  under  these  circum 
stances,  to  execute  laws  which  at  times 
have  been  thought  to  be  essential  for  the 
existence  of  the  country,  without  risk  of  in 
jury  to  others.  The  extent  and  importance 
of  those  injuries,  however,  are  so  formida 
ble,  that  it  is  admitted  that  some  remedy 
should,  if  possible,  be  applied ;  at  all  events, 
it  must  be  fairly  and  honestly  attempted. 
It  is  true,  that  during  the  continuance  of 
peace  no  practical  grievance  can  arise ;  but 
it  is  also  true,  that  it  is  for  that  reason  the 
proper  season  for  the  calm  and  deliberate 
consideration  of  an  important  subject.  I 


have  much  reason  to  hope  that  a  satisfac 
tory  arrangement  respecting  it  may  be 
made,  so  as  to  set  at  rest  all  apprehension 
and  anxiety  ;  and  I  will  only  further  repeat 
the  assuraifbe  of  the  sincere  disposition  of 
my  government  favorably  to  consider  all 
matters  having  for  their  object  the  promot 
ing  and  maintaining  undisturbed  kind  and 
friendly  feelings  with  the  United  States. 

I  beg,  Sir,  on  this  occasion  of  closing  the 
correspondence  with  you  connected  with 
my  mission,  to  express  the  satisfaction  I 
feel  at  its  successful  termination,  and  to 
assure  you  of  my  high  consideration  and 
personal  esteem  and  regard. 

ASHBURTON. 

HON.  DANIEL  WEBSTER,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


THE     RIGHT     OF     SEARCH. 


Mr.  Webster  to  Mr.  Everett. 

Department  of  State,  Washington, 
March  28,  1843. 

SIR,  —  I  transmit  to  you  with  this  de 
spatch  a  message  from  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  Congress,  communicated 
on  the  27th  of  February,  and  accompanied 
by  a  report  made  from  this  department  to 
the  President,  of  the  substance  of  a  de 
spatch  from  Lord  Aberdeen  to  Mr.  Fox, 
which  was  by  him  read  to  me  on  the  24th 
ultimo. 

Lord  Aberdeen's  despatch,  as  you  will 
perceive,  was  occasioned  by  a  passage  in 
the  President's  message  to  Congress  at  the 
opening  of  its  late  session.  The  particular 
passage  is  not  stated  by  his  Lordship ;  but 
no  mistake  will  be  committed,  it  is  pre 
sumed,  in  considering  it  to  be  that  which 
was  quoted  by  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  other 
gentlemen  in  the  debate  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  on  the  answer  to  the  Queen's 
speech,  on  the  3d  of  February. 

The  President  regrets  that  it  should  have 
become  necessary  to  hold  a  diplomatic  cor 
respondence  upon  the  subject  of  a  commu 
nication  from  the  head  of  the  executive 
government  to  the  legislature,  drawing  after 
it,  as  in  this  case,  the  further  necessity  of 
referring  to  observations  made  by  persons 
in  high  and  responsible  stations,  in  debates 
of  public  bodies.  Such  a  necessity,  how 
ever,  seems  to  be  unavoidably  incurred  in 


consequence  of  Lord  Aberdeen's  despatch  ; 
for,  although  the  President's  recent  message 
may  be  regarded  as  a  clear  exposition  of 
his  opinions  on  the  subject,  yet  a  just  re 
spect  for  her  Majesty's  government,  and 
a  disposition  to  meet  all  questions  with 
promptness,  as  well  as  with  frankness  and 
candor,  require  that  a  formal  answer  should 
be  made  to  that  despatch. 

The  words  in  the  message  at  the  opening 
of  the  session  which  are  complained  of,  it 
is  supposed,  are  the  following :  "Although 
Lord  Aberdeen,  in  his  correspondence  with 
the  American  envoys  at  London,  expressly 
disclaimed  all  right  to  detain  an  American 
ship  on  the  high  seas,  even  if  found  with  a 
cargo  of  slaves  on  board,  and  restricted  the 
British  pretension  to  a  mere  claim  to  visit 
and  inquire,  yet  it  could  not  well  be  dis 
cerned  by  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States  how  such  visit  and  inquiry  could  be 
made  without  detention  on  the  voyage,  and 
consequent  interruption  to  the  trade.  It 
was  regarded  as  the  right  of  search,  pre 
sented  only  in  a  new  form  and  expressed  in 
different  words ;  and  I  therefore  felt  it  to 
be  my  duty  distinctly  to  declare,  in  my  an 
nual  message  to  Congress,  that  no  such  con 
cession  could  be  made,  and  that  the  United 
States  had  both  the  will  and  the  ability  to 
enforce  their  own  laws,  and  to  protect  their 
flag  from  being  used  for  purposes  wholly 
forbidden  by  those  laws,  and  obnoxious  to 
the  moral  censure  of  the  world." 


THE  RIGHT  OF   SEARCH. 


661 


This  statement  would  tend,  as  Lord  Aber 
deen  thinks,  to  convey  the  supposition,  not 
only  that  the  question  of  the  right  of  search 
had  been  disavowed  by  the  British  pleni 
potentiary  at  Washington,  but  that  Great 
Britain  had  made  concessions  on  that  point. 

Lord  Aberdeen  is  entirely  correct  in  say 
ing  that  the  claim  of  a  right  of  search  was 
not  discussed  during  the  late  negotiation, 
and  that  neither  was  any  concession  re 
quired  by  this  government,  nor  made  by 
that  of  her  Britannic  Majesty. 

The  eighth  and  ninth  articles  of  the 
treaty  of  Washington  constitute  a  mutual 
stipulation  for  concerted  efforts  to  abolish 
the  African  slave-trade.  The  stipulation, 
it  may  be  admitted,  has  no  other  effects  on 
the  pretensions  of  either  party  than  this  : 
Great  Britain  had  claimed  as  a  right  that 
which  this  government  could  not  admit  to 
be  a  right,  and,  in  the  exercise  of  a  just  and 
proper  spirit  of  amity,  a  mode  was  resorted 
to  which  might  render  unnecessary  both 
the  assertion  and  the  denial  of  such  claim. 

There  probably  are  those  who  think  that 
what  Lord  Aberdeen  calls  a  right  of  visit, 
and  which  he  attempts  to  distinguish  from 
the  right  of  search,  ought  to  have  been  ex 
pressly  acknowledged  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States.  At  the  same  time, 
there  are  those  on  the  other  side  who  think 
that  the  formal  surrender  of  such  right  of 
visit  should  have  been  demanded  by  the 
United  States  as  a  precedent  condition  to 
the  negotiation  for  treaty  stipulations  on 
the  subject  of  the  African  slave-trade.  But 
the  treaty  neither  asserts  the  claim  in  terms, 
nor  denies  the  claim  in  terms ;  it  neither 
formally  insists  upon  it,  nor  formally  re 
nounces  it.  Still,  the  whole  proceeding 
shows  that  the  object  of  the  stipulation 
was  to  avoid  such  differences  and  disputes 
as  had  already  arisen,  and  the  serious  prac 
tical  evils  and  inconveniences  which,  it  can 
not  be  denied,  are  always  liable  to  result 
from  the  practice  which  Great  Britain  had 
asserted  to  be  lawful.  These  evils  and  in 
conveniences  had  been  acknowledged  by 
both  governments.  They  had  been  such  as 
to  cause  much  irritation,  and  to  threaten  to 
disturb  the  amicable  sentiments  which  pre 
vailed  between  them.  Both  governments 
were  sincerely  desirous  of  abolishing  the 
slave-trade ;  both  governments  were  equally 
desirous  of  avoiding  occasion  of  complaint 
by  their  respective  citizens  and  subjects  ; 
and  both  governments  regarded  the  eighth 
and  ninth  articles  as  effectual  for  their 
avowed  purpose,  and  likely,  at  the  same 


time,  to  preserve  all  friendly  relations,  and 
to  take  away  causes  of  future  individual 
complaints.  The  treaty  of  Washington  was 
intended  to  fulfil  the  obligations  entered 
into  by  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  It  stands  by 
itself;  is  clear  and  intelligible.  It  speaks 
its  own  language,  and  manifests  its  own 
purpose.  It  needs  no  interpretation,  and 
requires  no  comment.  As  a  fact,  as  an  im 
portant  occurrence  in  national  intercourse, 
it  majr  have  important  bearings  on  existing 
questions  respecting  the  public  law ;  and 
individuals,  or  perhaps  governments,  may 
not  agree  as  to  what  these  bearings  really 
are.  Great  Britain  has  discussions,  if  not 
controversies,  with  other  great  European 
states  upon  the  subject  of  visit  or  search. 
These  states  will  naturally  make  their  own 
commentary  on  the  treaty  of  Washington, 
and  draw  their  own  inferences  from  the 
fact  that  such  a  treaty  has  been  entered 
into.  Its  stipulations,  in  the  mean  time, 
are  plain,  explicit,  and  satisfactory  to  both 
parties,  and  will  be  fulfilled  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  and,  it  is  not  doubted,  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain  also,  with  the 
utmost  good  faith. 

Holding  this  to  be  the  true  character  of 
the  treaty,  I  might,  perhaps,  excuse  myself 
from  entering  into  the  consideration  of  the 
grounds  of  that  claim  of  a  right  to  visit 
merchant-ships  for  certain  purposes,  in  time 
of  peace,  which  Lord  Aberdeen  asserts  for 
the  British  government,  and  declares  that  it 
can  never  surrender.  But  I  deem  it  right, 
nevertheless,  and  no  more  than  justly  re 
spectful  toward  the  British  government,  not 
to  leave  the  point  without  remark. 

In  his  recent  message  to  Congress,  the 
President,  referring  to  the  language  of 
Lord  Aberdeen  in  his  note  to  Mr.  Everett 
of  the  20th  of  December,  1841,  and  in  his 
late  despatch  to  Mr.  Fox,  says :  "  These 
declarations  may  well  lead  us  to  doubt 
whether  the  apparent  difference  between 
the  two  governments  is  not  rather  one  of 
definition  than  of  principle." 

Lord  Aberdeen,  in  his  note  to  you  of  the 
20th  of  December,  says  :  "  The  undersigned 
again  renounces,  as  he  has  already  done  in 
the  most  explicit  terms,  any  right  on  the 
part  of  the  British  government  to  search 
American  vessels  in  time  of  peace.  The 
right  of  search,  except  when  specially  con 
ceded  by  treaty,  is  a  pure  belligerent 
right,  and  can  have  no  existence  on  the 
high  seas  during  peace.  The  undersigned 
apprehends,  however,  that  the  right  of 
search  is  not  confined  to  the  verification 


662 


APPENDIX. 


of  the  nationality  of  the  vessel,  but  also 
extends  to  the  object  of  the  voyage  and 
the  nature  of  the  cargo.  The  sole  pur 
pose  of  the  British  cruisers  is  to  ascertain 
whether  the  vessels  they  meet  with  are 
really  American  or  not.  The  right  asserted 
has,  in  truth,  no  resemblance  to  the  right  of 
search,  either  in  principle  or  practice.  It  is 
simply  a  right  to  satisfy  the  party  who  has 
a  legitimate  interest  in  knowing  the  truth, 
that  the  vessel  actually  is  what  her  colors 
announce.  This  right  we  concede  as  freely 
as  we  exercise.  The  British  cruisers  are  not 
instructed  to  detain  American  vessels  under 
any  circumstances  whatever ;  on  the  con 
trary,  they  are  ordered  to  abstain  from  all 
interference  with  them,  be  they  slavers  or 
otherwise.  But  where  reasonable  suspicion 
exists  that  the  American  flag  has  been 
abused  for  the  purpose  of  covering  the 
vessel  of  another  nation,  it  would  appear 
scarcely  credible,  had  it  not  been  made 
manifest  by  the  repeated  protestations  of 
their  representative,  that  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  which  has  stigma 
tized  and  abolished  the  trade  itself,  should 
object  to  the  adoption  of  such  means  as  are 
indispensably  necessary  for  ascertaining  the 
truth." 

And  in  his  recent  despatch  to  Mr.  Fox 
his  Lordship  further  says  :  "  That  the  Presi 
dent  might  be  assured  that  Great  Britain 
would  always  respect  the  just  claims  of 
the  United  States.  That  the  British  gov 
ernment  made  no  pretension  to  interfere  in 
any  manner  whatever,  either  by  detention, 
visit,  or  search,  with  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  known  or  believed  to  be  such,  but 
that  it  still  maintained,  and  would  exercise 
when  necessary,  its  own  right  to  ascertain 
the  genuineness  of  any  flag  which  a  sus 
pected  vessel  might  bear;  that  if,  in  the  ex 
ercise  of  this  right,  either  from  involuntary 
error,  or  in  spite  of  every  precaution,  loss 
or  injury  should  be  sustained,  a  prompt 
reparation  would  be  afforded ;  but  that  it 
should  entertain,  for  a  single  instant,  the 
notion  of  abandoning  the  right  itself,  would 
be  quite  impossible." 

This,  then,  is  the  British  claim,  as  asserted 
by  her  Majesty's  government. 

In  his  remarks  in  the  speech  already  re 
ferred  to,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the 
first  minister  of  the  crown  said :  "  There  is 
nothing  more  distinct  than  the  right  of  visit 
is  from  the  right  of  search.  Search  is  a 
belligerent  right,  and  not  to  be  exercised 
in  time  of  peace,  except  when  it  has  been 
conceded  by  treaty.  The  right  of  search 


extends  not  only  to  the  vessel,  but  to  the 
cargo  also.  The  right  of  visit  is  quite  dis 
tinct  from  this,  though  the  two  are  often 
confounded^  The  right  of  search,  with  re 
spect  to  American  vessels,  we  entirely  and 
utterly  disclaim ;  nay,  more,  if  we  knew 
that  an  American  vessel  were  furnished 
with  all  the  materials  requisite  for  the 
slave-trade,  if  we  knew  that  the  decks 
were  prepared  to  receive  hundreds  of  hu 
man  beings  within  a  space  in  which  life  is 
almost  impossible,  still  we  should  be  bound 
to  let  that  American  vessel  pass  on.  But  the 
right  we  claim  is  to  know  whether  a  vessel 
pretending  to  be  American,  and  hoisting  the 
American  flag,  be  bonafide  American." 

The  President's  message  is  regarded  as 
holding  opinions  in  opposition  to  these. 

The  British  government,  then,  supposes 
that  the  right  of  visit  and  the  right  of  search 
are  essentially  distinct  in  their  nature,  and 
that  this  difference  is  well  known  and  gen 
erally  acknowledged ;  that  the  difference  be 
tween  them  consists  in  their  different  ob 
jects  and  purposes  :  one,  the  visit,  having 
for  its  object  nothing  but  to  ascertain  the 
nationality  of  the  vessel ;  the  other,  the 
search,  by  an  inquisition,  not  only  into  the 
nationality  of  the  vessel,  but  the  nature 
and  object  of  her  voyage,  and  the  true 
ownership  of  her  cargo. 

The  government  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  other  hand,  maintains  that  there  is  no 
such  well-known  and  acknowledged,  nor, 
indeed,  any  broad  and  generic  difference 
between  what  has  been  usually  called  visit, 
and  what  has  been  usually  called  search ; 
that  the  right  of  visit,  to  be  effectual,  must 
come,  in  the  end,  to  include  search ;  and 
thus  to  exercise,  in  peace,  an  authority 
which  the  law  of  nations  only  allows  in 
times  of  war.  If  such  well-known  distinc 
tion  exists,  where  are  the  proofs  of  it? 
What  writers  of  authority  on  public  law, 
what  adjudications  in  courts  of  admiralty, 
what  public  treaties,  recognize  it?  No  such 
recognition  has  presented  itself  to  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  it  understands  that  public  writers, 
courts  of  law,  and  solemn  treaties  have,  for 
two  centuries,  used  the  words  "  visit  "  and 
"  search  "  in  the  same  sense.  What  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  mean  by  the 
"  right  of  search,"  in  its  broadest  sense,  is 
called  by  Continental  writers  and  jurists 
by  no  other  name  than  the  "  right  of  visit." 
Visit,  therefore,  as  it  has  been  understood, 
implies  not  only  a  right  to  inquire  into  the 
national  character,  but  to  detain  the  vessel, 


THE   RIGHT  OF   SEARCH. 


663 


to  stop  the  progress  of  the  voyage,  to  ex 
amine  papers,  to  decide  on  their  regularity 
and  authenticity,  and  to  make  inquisition 
on  board  for  enemy's  property,  and  into  the 
business  which  the  vessel  is  engaged  in.  In 
other  words,  it  describes  the  entire  right  of 
belligerent  visitation  and  search.  Such  a 
right  is  justly  disclaimed  by  the  British  gov 
ernment  in  time  of  peace.  They,  neverthe 
less,  insist  on  a  right  which  they  denominate 
a  right  of  visit,  and  by  that  word  describe 
the  claim  which  they  assert.  It  is  proper, 
and  due  to  the  importance  and  delicacy  of 
the  questions  involved,  to  take  care  that,  in 
discussing  them,  both  governments  under 
stand  the  terms  which  may  be  used  in  the 
same  sense.  If,  indeed,  it  should  be  mani 
fest  that  the  difference  between  the  parties 
is  only  verbal,  it  might  be  hoped  that  no 
harm  would  be  done ;  but  the  government 
of  the  United  States  thinks  itself  not  justly 
chargeable  with  excessive  jealousy,  or  with 
too  great  scrupulosity  in  the  use  of  words, 
in  insisting  on  its  opinion  that  there  is  no 
such  distinction  as  the  British  government 
maintains  between  visit  and  search  ;  and 
that  there  is  no  right  to  visit  in  time  of 
peace,  except  in  the  execution  of  revenue 
laws  or  other  municipal  regulations,  in 
which  cases  the  right  is  usually  exercised 
near  the  coast,  or  within  the  marine  league, 
or  where  the  vessel  is  justly  suspected  of 
violating  the  law  of  nations  by  piratical 
aggression  ;  but,  wherever  exercised,  it  is  a 
right  of  search. 

Nor  can  the  United  States  government 
agree  that  the  term  "right"  is  justly  ap 
plied  to  such  exercise  of  power  as  the  Brit 
ish  government  thinks  it  indispensable  to 
maintain  in  certain  cases.  The  right  as 
serted  is  a  right  to  ascertain  whether  a 
merchant-vessel  is  justly  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  the  flag  which  she  may  hap 
pen  to  have  hoisted,  such  vessel  being  in 
circumstances  which  render  her  liable  to 
the  suspicion,  first,  that  she  is  not  entitled 
to  the  protection  of  the  flag ;  and  secondly, 
that,  if  not  entitled  to  it,  she  is,  either  by 
the  law  of  England,  as  an  English  vessel, 
or  under  the  provisions  of  treaties  with 
certain  European  powers,  subject  to  the 
supervision  and  search  of  British  cruisers. 
And  yet  Lord  Aberdeen  says,  "  that  if,  in 
the  exercise  of  this  right,  either  from  invol 
untary  error,  or  in  spite  of  every  precau 
tion,  loss  or  injury  should  be  sustained,  a 
prompt  reparation  would  be  afforded." 

It  is  not  easy  to  perceive  how  these  con 
sequences  can  be  admitted  justly  to  flow 


from  the  fair  exercise  of  a  clear  right.  If 
injury  be  produced  by  the  exercise  of  a 
right,  it  would  seem  strange  that  it  should 
be  repaired,  as  if  it  had  been  the  effect  of 
a  wrongful  act.  The  general  rule  of  law 
certainly  is,  that,  in  the  proper  and  prudent 
exercise  of  his  own  right,  no  one  is  answer 
able  for  undesigned  injuries.  It  may  be 
said  that  the  right  is  a  qualified  right ;  that 
it  is  a  right  to  do  certain  acts  of  force  at 
the  risk  of  turning  out  to  be  wrong-doers, 
and  of  being  made  answerable  for  all  dam 
ages.  But  such  an  argument  would  prove 
every  trespass  to  be  matter  of  right,  sub 
ject  only  to  just  responsibility.  If  force 
were  allowed  to  such  reasoning  in  other 
cases,  it  would  follow  that  an  individual's 
right  in  his  own  property  was  hardly  more 
than  a  well-founded  claim  for  compensa 
tion  if  he  should  be  deprived  of  it.  But 
compensation  is  that  which  is  rendered  for 
injury,  and  is  not  commutation,  or  forced 
equivalent,  for  acknowledged  rights.  It 
implies,  at  least  in  its  general  interpretation, 
the  commission  of  some  wrongful  act. 

But,  without  pressing  further  these  in 
quiries  into  the  accuracy  and  propriety  of 
definitions  and  the  use  of  words,  I  proceed 
to  draw  your  attention  to  the  thing  itself, 
and  to  consider  what  these  acts  are  which 
the  British  government  insists  its  cruisers 
have  a  right  to  perform,  and  to  what  con 
sequences  they  naturally  and  necessarily 
tend.  An  eminent  member  of  the  House 
of  Commons  l  thus  states  the  British  claim, 
and  his  statement  is  acquiesced  in  and  adopt 
ed  by  the  first  minister  of  the  crown :  — 

"The  claim  of  this  country  is  for  the 
right  of  our  cruisers  to  ascertain  whether  a 
merchant-vessel  is  justly  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  the  flag  which  she  may  hap 
pen  to  have  hoisted,  such  vessel  being  in 
circumstances  which  rendered  her  liable  to 
the  suspicion,  first,  that  she  was  not  enti 
tled  to  the  protection  of  the  flag ;  and,  sec 
ondly,  if  not  entitled  to  it,  she  was,  either 
under  the  law  of  nations  or  the  provisions 
of  treaties,  subject  to  the  supervision  and 
control  of  our  cruisers." 

Now  the  question  is,  By  ivhat  means  is 
this  ascertainment  to  be  effected  ? 

As  we  understand  the  general  and  set 
tled  rules  of  public  law,  in  respect  to  ships 
of  war  sailing  under  the  authority  of  their 
government,  "  to  arrest  pirates  and  other 
public  offenders,"  there  is  no  reason  why 
they  may  not  approach  any  vessels  descried 

1  Mr.  Wood,  now  Sir  Charles  Wood,  Chan 
cellor  of  the  Exchequer. 


664 


APPENDIX. 


at  sea  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their 
real  characters.  Such  a  right  of  approach 
seems  indispensable  for  the  fair  and  dis 
creet  exercise  of  their  authority ;  and  the 
use  of  it  cannot  be  justly  deemed  indicative 
of  any  design  to  insult  or  injure  those  they 
approach,  or  to  impede  them  in  their  law 
ful  commerce.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  as 
clear  that  no  ship  is,  under  such  circum 
stances,  bound  to  lie  by  or  wait  the  ap 
proach  of  any  other  ship.  She  is  at  full 
liberty  to  pursue  her  voyage  in  her  own 
way,  and  to  use  all  necessary  precautions 
to  avoid  any  suspected  sinister  enterprise 
or  hostile  attack.  Her  right  to  the  free 
use  of  the  ocean  is  as  perfect  as  that  of 
any  other  ship.  An  entire  equality  is  pre 
sumed  to  exist.  She  has  a  right  to  consult 
her  own  safety,  but  at  the  same  time  she 
must  take  care  not  to  violate  the  rights  of 
others.  She  may  use  any  precautions  dic 
tated  by  the  prudence  or  fears  of  her  offi 
cers,  either  as  to  delay,  or  the  progress  or 
course  of  her  voyage ;  but  she  is  not  at 
liberty  to  inflict  injuries  upon  other  inno 
cent  parties  simply  because  of  conjectural 
dangers. 

But  if  the  vessel  thus  approached  at 
tempts  to  avoid  the  vessel  approaching,  or 
does  not  comply  with  her  commander's  or 
der  to  send  him  her  papers  for  his  inspec 
tion,  nor  consent  to  be  visited  or  detained, 
what  is  next  to  be  done  ?  Is  force  to  be 
used  ?  And  if  force  be  used,  may  that 
force  be  lawfully  repelled  ?  These  ques 
tions  lead  at  once  to  the  elemental  prin 
ciple,  the  essence  of  the  British  claim. 
Suppose  the  merchant-vessel  be  in  truth 
an  American  vessel  engaged  in  lawful  com 
merce,  and  that  she  does  not  choose  to  be 
detained.  Suppose  she  resists  the  visit. 
What  is  the  consequence  ?  In  all  cases 
in  which  the  belligerent  right  of  visit 
exists,  resistance  to  the  exercise  of  that 
right  is  regarded  as  just  cause  of  condem 
nation,  both  of  vessel  and  cargo.  Is  that 
penalty,  or  what  other  penalty,  to  be  in 
curred  by  resistance  to  visit  in  time  of 
peace  ?  Or  suppose  that  force  be  met  by 
force,  gun  returned  for  gun,  and  the  com 
mander  of  the  cruiser,  or  some  of  his  sea 
men,  be  killed;  what  description  of  offence 
will  have  been  committed  ?  It  would  be 
said,  in  behalf  of  the  commander  of  the 
cruiser,  that  he  mistook  the  vessel  for  a 
vessel  of  England,  Brazil,  or  Portugal ; 
bat  does  this  mistake  of  his  take  away 
from  the  American  vessel  the  right  of  self- 
defence  ?  The  writers  of  authority  declare 


it  to  be  a  principle  of  natural  law,  that  the 
privilege  of  self-defence  exists  against  an 
assailant  who  mistakes  the  object  of  his 
attack  for  another  whom  he  had  a  right  to 
assail. 

Lord  Aberdeen  cannot  fail  to  see,  there 
fore,  what  serious  consequences  might  en 
sue,  if  it  were  to  be  admitted  that  this 
claim  to  visit,  in  time  of  peace,  however 
limited  or  defined,  should  be  permitted  to 
exist  as  a  strict  matter  of  right ;  for  if  it 
exist  as  a  right,  it  must  be  followed  by  cor 
responding  duties  and  obligations,  and  the 
failure  to  fulfil  those  duties  would  natu 
rally  draw  penal  consequences  after  it,  till 
erelong  it  would  become,  in  truth,  little 
less,  or  little  other,  than  the  belligerent 
right  of  search. 

If  visit  or  visitation  be  not  accompanied 
by  search,  it  will  be  in  most  cases  merely 
idle.  A  sight  of  papers  may  be  demanded, 
and  papers  may  be  produced.  But  it  is 
known  that  slave-traders  carry  false  papers, 
and  different  sets  of  papers.  A  search  for 
other  papers,  then,  must  be  made  where 
suspicion  justifies  it,  or  else  the  whole  pro 
ceeding  would  be  nugatory.  In  suspicious 
cases,  the  language  and  general  appearance 
of  the  crew  are  among  the  means  of  ascer 
taining  the  national  character  of  the  vessel. 
The  cargo  on  board,  also,  often  indicates 
the  country  from  which  she  comes.  Her 
log-books,  showing  the  previous  course  and 
events  of  her  voyage,  her  internal  fitting 
up  and  equipment,  are  all  evidences  for  her, 
or  against  her,  on  her  allegation  of  charac 
ter.  These  matters,  it  is  obvious,  can  only 
be  ascertained  by  rigorous  search. 

It  may  be  asked,  If  a  vessel  may  not  be 
called  on  to  show  her  papers,  why  does  she 
carry  papers  ?  No  doubt  she  may  be  called 
on  to  show  her  papers ;  but  the  question  is, 
Where,  when,  and  by  whom  ?  Not  in  time 
of  peace,  on  the  high  seas,  where  her  rights 
are  equal  to  the  rights  of  any  other  vessel, 
and  where  none  has  a  right  to  molest  her. 
The  use  of  her  papers  is,  in  time  of  war,  to 
prove  her  neutrality  when  visited  by  bel 
ligerent  cruisers ;  and  in  both  peace  and 
war,  to  show  her  national  character,  and 
the  lawfulness  of  her  voyage,  in  those  ports 
of  other  countries  to  which  she  may  pro 
ceed  for  purposes  of  trade. 

It  appears  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  view  of  this  whole 
subject  which  is  the  most  naturally  taken 
is  also  the  most  legal,  and  most  in  analogy 
with  other  cases.  British  cruisers  have  a 
right  to  detain  British  merchantmen  for 


THE   RIGHT  OF   SEARCH. 


665 


certain  purposes ;  and  they  have  a  right, 
acquired  by  treaty,  to  detain  merchant- 
vessels  of  several  other  nations  for  the 
same  purposes.  But  they  have  no  right  at 
all  to  detain  an  American  merchant-vessel. 
This  Lord  Aberdeen  admits  in  the  fullest 
manner.  Any  detention  of  an  American 
vessel  by  a  British  cruiser  is  therefore  a 
wrong,  a  trespass ;  although  it  may  be 
done  under  the  belief  that  she  was  a  Brit 
ish  vessel,  or  that  she  belonged  to  a  nation 
which  had  conceded  the  right  of  such  de 
tention  to  the  British  cruisers,  and  the  tres 
pass  therefore  an  involuntary  trespass.  If 
a  ship  of  war,  in  thick  weather,  or  in  the 
darkness  of  the  night,  fire  upon  and  sink  a 
neutral  vessel,  under  the  belief  that  she  is 
an  enemy's  vessel,  this  is  a  trespass,  a  mere 
wrong;  and  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  act 
done  under  any  right,  accompanied  by  re 
sponsibility  for  damages.  So  if  a  civil 
officer  on  land  have  process  against  one 
individual,  and  through  mistake  arrest 
another,  this  arrest  is  wholly  tortious ;  no 
one  would  think  of  saying  that  it  was  done 
under  any  lawful  exercise  of  authority, 
subject  only  to  responsibility,  or  that  it 
was  any  thing  but  a  mere  trespass,  though 
an  unintentional  trespass.  The  municipal 
law  does  not  undertake  to  lay  down  before 
hand  any  rule  for  the  government  of  such 
cases ;  and  as  little,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  does  the 
public  law  of  the  world  lay  down  before 
hand  any  rule  for  the  government  of  cases 
of  involuntary  trespasses,  detentions,  and 
injuries  at  sea ;  except  that  in  both  classes 
of  cases  law  and  reason  make  a  distinction 
between  injuries  committed  through  mis 
take  and  injuries  committed  by  design,  the 
former  being  entitled  to  fair  and  just  com 
pensation,  the  latter  demanding  exemplary 
damages,  and  sometimes  personal  punish 
ment.  The  government  of  the  United 
States  has  frequently  made  known  its  opin 
ion,  which  it  now  repeats,  that  the  practice 
of  detaining  American  vessels,  though  sub 
ject  to  just  compensation  if  such  detention 
afterward  turn  out  to  have  been  without 
good  cause,  however  guarded  by  instruc 
tions,  or  however  cautiously  exercised, 
necessarily  leads  to  serious  inconvenience 
and  injury.  The  amount  of  loss  cannot  be 
always  well  ascertained.  Compensation,  if 
it  be  adequate  in  the  amount,  may  still 
necessarily  be  long  delayed;  and  the  pen 
dency  of  such  claims  always  proves  trou 
blesome  to  the  governments  of  both  coun 
tries.  These  detentions,  too,  frequently 


irritate  individuals,  cause  warm  blood,  and 
produce  nothing  but  ill  effects  on  the  ami 
cable  relations  existing  between  the  coun 
tries.  We  wish,  therefore,  to  put  an  end 
to  them,  and  to  avoid  all  occasions  for  their 
recurrence. 

On  the  whole,  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  while  it  has  not  conceded  a 
mutual  right  of  visit  or  search,  as  has  been 
done  by  the  parties  to  the  quintuple  treaty 
of  December,  1841,  does  not  admit  that,  by 
the  law  and  practice  of  nations,  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  a  right  of  visit,  distinguished 
by  well-known  rules  and  definitions  from 
the  right  of  search. 

It  does  not  admit  that  visit  of  Ameri 
can  merchant-vessels  by  British  cruisers  is 
founded  on  any  right,  notwithstanding  the 
cruiser  may  suppose  such  vessel  to  be  Brit 
ish,  Brazilian,  or  Portuguese.  We  cannot 
but  see  that  the  detention  and  examination 
of  American  vessels  by  British  cruisers  has 
already  led  to  consequences,  and  fear  that, 
if  continued,  it  would  still  lead  to  further 
consequences,  highly  injurious  to  the  law 
ful  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

At  the  same  time,  the  government  of  the 
United  States  fully  admits  that  its  flag  can 
give  no  immunity  to  pirates,  nor  to  any 
other  than  to  regularly  documented  Ameri 
can  vessels.  It  was  upon  this  view  of  the 
whole  case,  and  with  a  firm  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  these  sentiments,  that  it  cheer 
fully  assumed  the  duties  contained  in  the 
treaty  of  Washington ;  in  the  hope  that 
thereby  causes  of  difficulty  and  difference 
might  be  altogether  removed,  and  that  the 
two  powers  might  be  enabled  to  act  con 
currently,  cordially,  and  effectually  for  the 
suppression  of  a  traffic  which  both  regard 
as  a  reproach  upon  the  civilization  of  the 
age,  and  at  war  with  every  principle  of 
humanity  and  every  Christian  sentiment. 

The  government  of  the  United  States 
has  no  interest,  nor  is  it  under  the  influence 
of  any  opinions,  which  should  lead  it  to  de 
sire  any  derogation  of  the  just  authority 
and  rights  of  maritime  power.  But  in  the 
convictions  which  it  entertains,  and  in  the 
measures  which  it  has  adopted,  it  has  been 
governed  solely  by  a  sincere  desire  to  sup 
port  those  principles  and  those  practices 
which  it  believes  to  be  conformable  to  pub 
lic  law,  and  favorable  to  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  nations. 

Both  houses  of  Congress,  with  a  remarka 
ble  degree  of  unanimity,  have  made  express 
provisions  for  carrying  into  effect  the  eighth 
article  of  the  treaty.  An  American  squad- 


666 


APPENDIX. 


ron  will  immediately  proceed  to  the  coast 
of  Africa.  Instructions  for  its  commander 
are  in  the  course  of  preparation,  and  copies 
Vfill  be  furnished  to  the  British  govern 
ment;  and  the  President  confidently  be 
lieves,  that  the  cordial  concurrence  of  the 
two  governments  in  the  mode  agreed  on 


will  be  more  effectual  than  any  efforts  yet 
made  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade. 
You  will  read  this  despatch  to  Lord  Ab 
erdeen,  and,  if  he  desire  it,  give  him  a  copy. 
I  am,  Sir,  &c.,  &c. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
EDWARD  EVEKETT,  ESQ.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


LETTERS    TO    GENERAL    CASS    ON    THE    TREATY 
OF   WASHINGTON. 


Mr.  Webster  to  General  Cass. 

Department  of  State,  Washington, 
August  29,  1842. 

SIR,  —  You  will  see  by  the  enclosed  the 
result  of  the  negotiations  lately  had  in  this 
city  between  this  department  and  Lord  Ash- 
burton.  The  treaty  has  been  ratified  by 
the  President  and  Senate. 

In  communicating  to  you  this  treaty,  I 
am  directed  by  the  President  to  draw  your 
particular  attention  to  those  articles  which 
relate  to  the  suppression  of  the  African 
slave-trade. 

After  full  and  anxious  consideration  of 
this  very  delicate  subject,  the  government 
of  the  United  States  has  come  to  the  con 
clusion  which  you  will  see  expressed  in  the 
President's  message  to  the  Senate  accom 
panying  the  treaty. 

Without  intending  or  desiring  to  influ 
ence  the  policy  of  other  governments  on 
this  important  subject,  this  government  has 
reflected  on  what  was  due  to  its  own  char 
acter  and  position,  as  the  leading  maritime 
power  on  the  American  continent,  left  free 
to  make  choice  of  such  means  for  the  fulfil 
ment  of  its  duties  as  it  should  deem  best 
suited  to  its  dignity.  The  result  of  its  re 
flections  has  been,  that  it  does  not  concur 
in  measures  which,  for  whatever  benevolent 
purpose  they  may  be  adopted,  or  with  what 
ever  care  and  moderation  they  may  be  ex 
ercised,  have  yet  a  tendency  to  place  the 
police  of  the  seas  in  the  hands  of  a  single 
power.  It  chooses  rather  to  follow  its  own 
laws  with  its  own  sanction,  and  to  carry 
them  into  execution  by  its  own  authority. 
Disposed  to  act  in  the  spirit  of  the  most 
cordial  concurrence  with  other  nations  for 
the  suppression  of  the  African  slave-trade, 
that  great  reproach  of  our  times,  it  deems 


it  to  be  right,  nevertheless,  that  this  action, 
though  concurrent,  should  be  independent ; 
and  it  believes  that  from  this  independence 
it  will  derive  a  greater  degree  of  efficiency. 

You  will  perceive,  however,  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  this  government,  cruising 
against  slave-dealers  on  the  coast  of  Africa 
is  not  all  which  is  necessary  to  be  done  in 
order  to  put  an  end  to  the  traffic.  There 
are  markets  for  slaves,  or  the  unhappy 
natives  of  Africa  would  not  be  seized, 
chained,  and  carried  over  the  ocean  into 
slavery.  These  markets  ought  to  be  shut. 
And,  in  the  treaty  now  communicated  to 
you,  the  high  contracting  parties  have  stip 
ulated  "  that  they  will  unite,  in  all  becom 
ing  representations  and  remonstrances,  with 
any  and  all  powers  within  whose  dominions 
such  markets  are  allowed  to  exist ;  and 
that  they  will  urge  upon  all  such  powers 
the  propriety  and  duty  of  closing  such 
markets  effectually,  at  once  and  for  ever." 

You  are  furnished,  then,  with  the  Ameri 
can  policy  in  regard  to  this  interesting 
subject.  First,  independent  but  cordially 
concurrent  efforts  of  maritime  states  to  sup 
press,  as  far  as  possible,  the  trade  on  the 
coast,  by  means  of  competent  and  well- 
appointed  squadrons,  to  watch  the  shores 
and  scour  the  neighboring  seas.  Secondly, 
concurrent,  becoming  remonstrance  with  all 
governments  who  tolerate  within  their  ter 
ritories  markets  for  the  purchase  of  African 
negroes.  There  is  much  reason  to  believe 
that,  if  other  states,  professing  equal  hos 
tility  to  this  nefarious  traffic,  would  give 
their  own  powerful  concurrence  and  co 
operation  to  these  remonstrances,  the  gen 
eral  effect  would  be  satisfactory,  and  that 
the  cupidity  and  crimes  of  individuals  would 
at  length  cease  to  find  both  their  temp 
tation  and  their  reward  in  the  bosom  of 


LETTERS  ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


667 


Christian  states,  and  in  the  permission  of 
Christian  governments. 

It  will  still  remain  for  each  government 
to  revise,  execute,  and  make  more  effectual 
its  own  municipal  laws  against  its  subjects 
or  citizens  who  shall  be  concerned  in,  or  in 
any  way  give  aid  or  countenance  to  others 
concerned  in  this  traffic. 

You  are  at  liberty  to  make  the  contents 
of  this  despatch  known  to  the  French  gov 
ernment. 

I  have,  &c. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
LEWIS  CASS,  ESQ.,  &c.,  &c.,  £c. 


Mr.  F.  Webster  to  General  Cass. 

Department  of  State,  Washington, 
October  11,  1842. 

SIR,  —  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  despatch  of  the  17th  of  September 
last,  requesting  permission  to  return  home. 

I  have  submitted  the  despatch  to  the  Pres 
ident,  and  am  by  him  directed  to  say,  that 
although  he  much  regrets  that  your  own 
wishes  should,  at  this  time,  terminate  your 
mission  to  the  court  of  France,  where  for  a 
long  period  you  have  rendered  your  coun 
try  distinguished  service,  in  all  instances  to 
its  honor  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  where  you  occupy  so  favor 
able  a  position,  from  the  more  than  ordi 
nary  good  intelligence  which  is  understood 
to  subsist  between  you,  personally,  and  the 
members  of  the  French  government,  and 
from  the  esteem  entertained  for  you  by  its 
illustrious  head ;  yet  he  cannot  refuse  your 
request  to  return  once  more  to  your  home 
and  your  country,  so  that  you  can  pay  that 
attention  to  your  personal  and  private  af 
fairs  which  your  long  absence  and  constant 
employment  in  the  service  of  your  govern 
ment  may  now  render  most  necessary. 

I  have,  Sir,  to  tender  you,  on  behalf  of 
the  President,  his  most  cordial  good  wishes, 
and  am,  &c. 

FLETCHER  WEBSTER, 

Acting  Secretary  of  State. 
LEWIS  CASS,  ESQ.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Webster  to  General  Cass. 

Department  of  State,  Washington, 

November  14,  1842. 

SIR,  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge 
the  receipt  of  your  despatch  of  the  3d  of 
October,  brought  by  the  "  Great  Western," 
which  arrived  at  New  York  on  the  6th  in 
stant. 


It  is  probable  you  will  have  embarked  for 
the  United  States  before  my  communication 
can  now  reach  you;  but  as  it  is  thought 
proper  that  your  letter  should  be  answered, 
and  as  circumstances  may  possibly  have 
occurred  to  delay  your  departure,  this  will 
be  transmitted  to  Paris  in  the  ordinary  way. 

Your  letter  has  caused  the  President  con 
siderable  concern.  Entertaining  a  lively 
sense  of  the  respectable  and  useful  manner 
in  which  you  have  discharged,  for  several 
years,  the  duties  of  an  important  foreign 
mission,  it  occasions  him  real  regret  and 
pain,  that  your  last  official  communication 
should  be  of  such  a  character  as  that  he 
cannot  give  to  it  his  entire  and  cordial  ap 
probation. 

It  appears  to  be  intended  as  a  sort  of  pro 
test,  a  remonstrance,  in  the  form  of  an  offi 
cial  despatch,  against  a  transaction  of  the 
government  to  which  you  were  not  a  party, 
in  which  you  had  no  agency  whatever,  and 
for  the  results  of  which  you  were  no  way 
answerable.  This  would  seem  an  unusual 
and  extraordinary  proceeding.  In  common 
with  every  other  citizen  of  the  republic,  you 
have  an  unquestionable  right  to  form  opinions 
upon  public  transactions,  and  the  conduct 
of  public  men ;  but  it  will  hardly  be  thought 
to  be  among  either  the  duties  or  the  priv 
ileges  of  a  minister  abroad  to  make  formal 
remonstrances  and  protests  against  proceed 
ings  of  the  various  branches  of  the  govern 
ment  at  home,  upon  subjects  in  relation  to 
which  he  himself  has  not  been  charged  with 
any  duty  or  partaken  any  responsibility. 

The  negotiation  and  conclusion  of  the 
treaty  of  Washington  were  in  the  hands  of 
the  President  and  Senate.  They  had  acted 
upon  this  important  subject  according  to 
their  convictions  of  duty  and  of  the  public 
interest,  and  had  ratified  the  treaty.  It  was 
a  thing  done ;  and  although  your  opinion 
might  be  at  variance  with  that  of  the  Pres 
ident  and  Senate,  it  is  not  perceived  that 
you  had  any  cause  of  complaint,  remon 
strance,  or  protest,  more  than  any  other  cit 
izen  who  might  entertain  the  same  opinion. 

In  your  letter  of  the  17th  of  September, 
requesting  your  recall,  you  observe  :  "  The 
mail  by  the  steam-packet  which  left  Boston 
the  1st  instant  has  just  arrived,  and  has 
brought  intelligence  of  the  ratification  of 
the  treaties  recently  concluded  with  Great 
Britain.  All  apprehensions,  therefore,  of 
any  immediate  difficulties  with  that  country 
are  at  an  end,  and  I  do  not  see  that  any 
public  interest  demands  my  further  resi 
dence  in  Europe.  I  can  no  longer  be  use- 


668 


APPENDIX. 


f  ul  here,  and  the  state  of  my  private  affairs 
requires  my  presence  at  home.  Under  these 
circumstances,  I  beg  you  to  submit  to  the 
President  my  wish  for  permission  to  retire 
from  this  mission,  and  to  return  to  the 
United  States  without  delay." 

As  j'ou  appeared  at  that  time  not  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty, 
it  was  inferred  that  your  desire  to  return 
home  proceeded  from  the  conviction  that,  in 
asmuch,  as  all  apprehensions  of  immediate  differ 
ences  with  Great  Britain  were  at  an  end,  you 
would  no  longer  be  useful  at  Paris.  Placing 
this  interpretation  on  your  letter,  and  be 
lieving,  as  you  yourself  allege,  that  your 
long  absence  abroad  rendered  it  desirable 
for  you  to  give  some  attention  to  your  pri 
vate  affairs  in  this  country,  the  President 
lost  no  time  in  yielding  to  your  request, 
and,  in  doing  so,  signified  to  you  the  senti 
ments  of  approbation  which  he  entertained 
for  your  conduct  abroad.  You  may,  then, 
well  imagine  the  great  astonishment  which 
the  declaration  contained  in  your  despatch 
of  the  3d  of  October,  that  you  could  no 
longer  remain  in  France  honorably  to  your 
self  or  advantageously  to  the  country,  and 
that  the  proceedings  of  this  government  had 
placed  you  in  a  false  position,  from  which 
you  could  escape  only  by  returning  home, 
created  in  his  mind. 

The  President  perceives  not  the  slightest 
foundation  for  these  opinions.  He  cannot 
see  how  your  usefulness  as  minister  to 
France  should  be  terminated  by  the  settle 
ment  of  difficulties  and  disputes  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  You 
have  been  charged  with  no  duties  connected 
with  the  settlement  of  these  quest  ions,  or  in 
any  way  relating  to  them,  beyond  the  com 
munication  to  the  French  government  of  the 
President's  approbation  of  your  letter  of 
the  13th  of  February,  written  without  pre 
vious  instructions  from  this  department. 
This  government  is  not  informed  of  any 
other  act  or  proceeding  of  yours  connected 
with  any  part  of  the  subject,  nor  does  it 
know  that  your  official  conduct  and  charac 
ter  have  become  in  any  other  way  connected 
with  the  question  of  the  right  of  search ; 
and  that  letter  having  been  approved,  and 
the  French  government  having  been  so  in 
formed,  the  President  is  altogether  at  a  loss 
to  understand  how  you  can  regard  yourself 
as  placed  in  a  false  position.  If  the  char 
acter  or  conduct  of  any  one  was  to  be  af 
fected,  it  could  only  be  the  character  and 
conduct  of  the  President  himself.  The  gov 
ernment  has  done  nothing,  most  assuredly, 


to  place  you  in  a  false  position.  Represent 
ing  your  country  at  a  foreign  court,  you 
saw  a  transaction  about  to  take  place  be 
tween  the  government  to  which  you  were 
accredited  and  another  power,  which  you 
thought  might  have  a  prejudicial  effect  on 
the  interest  of  your  own  country.  Think 
ing,  as  it  is  to  be  presumed,  that  the  case 
was  too  pressing  to  wait  for  instructions, 
you  presented  a  protest  against  that  trans 
action,  and  our  government  approved  your 
proceeding.  This  is  your  only  official  con 
nection  with  the  whole  subject.  If  after 
this  the  President  had  sanctioned  the  nego 
tiation  of  a  treaty,  and  the  Senate  had  rat 
ified  it,  containing  provisions  in  the  highest 
degree  objectionable,  however  the  govern 
ment  might  be  discredited,  your  exemption 
from  all  blame  and  censure  would  have 
been  complete.  Having  delivered  your  let 
ter  of  the  13th  of  February  to  the  French 
government,  and  having  received  the  Pres 
ident's  approbation  of  that  proceeding,  it  is 
most  manifest  that  you  could  be  in  no  de 
gree  responsible  for  what  should  be  done 
afterward,  and  done  by  others.  The  Pres 
ident,  therefore,  cannot  conceive  what  par 
ticular  or  personal  interest  of  yours  was 
affected  by  the  subsequent  negotiation  here, 
or  how  the  treaty,  the  result  of  that  nego 
tiation,  should  put  an  end  to  your  useful 
ness  as  a  public  minister  at  the  court  of 
France,  or  in  any  way  affect  your  official 
character  or  conduct. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  such  a  pro 
ceeding  as  you  have  seen  fit  to  adopt  might 
produce  much  inconvenience,  and  even  se 
rious  prejudice,  to  the  public  interests. 
Your  opinion  is  against  the  treaty,  a  treaty 
concluded  and  formally  ratified;  and,  to 
support  that  opinion,  while  yet  in  the  ser 
vice  of  the  government,  you  put  a  construc 
tion  on  its  provisions  such  as  your*own  gov 
ernment  does  not  put  upon  them,  such  as 
you  must  be  aware  the  enlightened  public 
of  Europe  does  not  put  upon  them,  and 
such  as  England  herself  has  not  put  upon 
them  as  yet,  so  far  as  we  know. 

It  may  become  necessary  hereafter  to 
publish  your  letter,  in  connection  with  other 
correspondence  of  the  mission ;  and  al 
though  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  you 
looked  to  such  publication,  because  such  a 
presumption  would  impute  to  you  a  claim 
to  put  forth  your  private  opinions  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  President  and  Senate,  in  a 
transaction  finished  and  concluded,  through 
the  imposing  form  of  a  public  despatch,  yet, 
if  published,  it  cannot  be  foreseen  how  far 


LETTERS  ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


669 


England  might  hereafter  rely  on  your  au 
thority  for  a  construction  favorable  to  her 
own  pretensions,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
interest  and  honor  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  certain  that  you  would  most  sedulously 
desire  to  avoid  any  such  attitude.  You 
would  be  slow  to  express  opinions,  in  a  sol 
emn  and  official  form,  favorable  to  another 
government,  and  on  the  authority  of  which 
opinions  that  other  government  might  here 
after  found  new  claims  or  set  up  new  pre 
tensions.  It  is  for  this  reason,  as  well  as 
others,  that  the  President  feels  so  much  re 
gret  at  your  desire  of  placing  your  construc 
tion  of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  and 
your  objections  to  those  provisions,  accord 
ing  to  your  construction,  upon  the  records 
of  the  government. 

Before  examining  the  several  objections 
suggested  by  you,  it  may  be  proper  to  take 
notice  of  what  you  say  upon  the  course  of 
the  negotiation.  In  regard  to  this,  having 
observed  that  the  national  dignity  of  the 
United  States  had  not  been  compromised 
down  to  the  time  of  the  President's  message 
to  the  last  session  of  Congress,  you  proceed 
to  say :  "  But  England  then  urged  the 
United  States  to  enter  into  a  conventional 
arrangement,  by  which  we  might  be  pledged 
to  concur  with  her  in  measures  for  the  sup 
pression  of  the  slave-trade.  Till  then  we 
had  executed  our  own  laws  in  our  own  way. 
But,  yielding  to  this  application,  and  de 
parting  from  our  former  principle  of  avoid 
ing  European  combinations  upon  subjects 
not  American,  we  stipulated  in  a  solemn 
treaty,  that  we  would  carry  into  effect  our 
own  laws,  and  fixed  the  minimum  force  we 
would  employ  for  that  purpose." 

The  President  cannot  conceive  how  you 
should  have  been  led  to  adventure  upon 
such  a  statement  as  this.  It  is  but  a  tissue 
of  mistakes.  England  did  not  urge  the 
United  States  to  enter  into  this  conven 
tional  arrangement.  The  United  States 
yielded  to  no  application  from  England. 
The  proposition  for  abolishing  the  slave- 
trade,  as  it  stands  in  the  treaty,  was  an 
American  proposition ;  it  originated  with 
the  executive  government  of  the  United 
States,  which  cheerfully  assumes  all  its 
responsibility.  It  stands  upon  it  as  its 
own  mode  of  fulfilling  its  duties,  and  ac 
complishing  its  objects.  Nor  have  the 
United  States  departed,  in  this  treaty,  in 
the  slightest  degree,  from  their  former 
principles  of  avoiding  European  combina 
tions  upon  subjects  not  American,  because 
the  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade  is 


an  American  subject  as  emphatically  as  it 
is  a  European  subject ;  and  indeed  more  so, 
inasmuch  as  the  government  of  the  United 
States  took  the  first  great  steps  in  declar 
ing  that  trade  unlawful,  and  in  attempting 
its  extinction.  The  abolition  of  this  traffic 
is  an  object  of  the  highest  interest  to  the 
American  people  and  the  American  govern 
ment  ;  and  you  seem  strangely  to  have  over 
looked  altogether  the  important  fact,  that 
nearly  thirty  years  ago,  by  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  the  United  States  bound  themselves, 
by  solemn  compact  with  England,  to  con 
tinue  "  their  efforts  to  promote  its  entire 
abolition,"  both  parties  pledging  themselves 
by  that  treaty  to  use  their  best  endeavors 
to  accomplish  so  desirable  an  object. 

Again,  you  speak  of  an  important  con 
cession  made  to  the  renewed  application  of 
England.  But  the  treaty,  let  it  be  repeated, 
makes  no  concession  to  England  whatever. 
It  complies  with  no  demand,  grants  no  ap 
plication,  conforms  to  no  request.  All 
these  statements,  thus  by  you  made,  and 
which  are  so  exceedingly  erroneous,  seem 
calculated  to  hold  up  the  idea,  that  in  this 
treaty  your  government  has  been  acting  a 
subordinate,  or  even  a  complying  part. 

The  President  is  not  a  little  startled  that 
you  should  make  such  totally  groundless 
assumptions  of  fact,  and  then  leave  a  dis 
creditable  inference  to  be  drawn  from  them. 
He  directs  me  not  only  to  repel  this  infer 
ence  as  it  ought  to  be  repelled,  but  also  to 
bring  to  your  serious  consideration  and  re 
flection  the  propriety  of  such  an  assumed 
narration  of  facts  as  your  despatch,  in  this 
respect,  puts  forth. 

Having  informed  the  department  that  a 
copy  of  the  letter  of  the  24th  of  August, 
addressed  by  me  to  you,  had  been  deliv 
ered  to  M.  Guizot,  you  proceed  to  say  :  "  In 
executing  this  duty,  I  felt  too  well  what 
was  due  to  my  government  and  country  to 
intimate  my  regret  to  a  foreign  power  that 
some  declaration  had  not  preceded  the 
treaty,  or  some  stipulation  accompanied  it, 
by  which  the  extraordinary  pretension  of 
Great  Britain  to  search  our  ships  at  all 
times  and  in  all  places,  first  put  forth  to 
the  world  by  Lord  Palmerston  on  the  27th 
of  August,  1841,  and  on  the  13th  of  Octo 
ber  following  again  peremptorily  claimed 
as  a  right  by  Lord  Aberdeen,  would  have 
been  abrogated,  as  equally  incompatible 
with  the  laws  of  nations  and  with  the  inde 
pendence  of  the  United  States.  I  confined 
myself,  therefore,  to  a  simple  communica 
tion  of  your  letter."  It  may  be  true  that 


670 


APPENDIX. 


the  British  pretension  leads  necessarily  to 
consequences  as  broad  and  general  as  your 
statement  But  it  is  no  more  than  fair  to 
state  that  pretension  in  the  words  of  the 
British  government  itself,  and  then  it  be 
comes  matter  of  consideration  and  argu 
ment  how  broad  and  extensive  it  really  is. 
The  last  statement  of  this  pretension,  or 
claim,  by  the  British  government,  is  con 
tained  in  Lord  Aberdeen's  note  to  Mr. 
Stevenson  of  the  13th  of  October,  1841. 
It  is  in  these  words :  — 

"  The  undersigned  readily  admits,  that  to 
visit  and  search  American  vessels  in  time  of 
peace,  when  that  right  of  search  is  not  granted 
by  treaty,  would  be  an  infraction  of  public  law, 
and  a  violation  of  national  dignity  and  inde 
pendence.  But  no  such  right  is  asserted.  We 
sincerely  desire  to  respect  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  but  we  may  reasonably  expect 
to  know  what  it  really  is  that  we  respect. 
Doubtless  the  flag  is  prlma  fade  evidence  of 
the  nationality  of  the  vessel;  and,  if  this  evi 
dence  were  in  its  nature  conclusive  and  irrefra 
gable,  it  ought  to  preclude  all  further  inquiry. 
But  it  is  sufficiently  notorious  that  the  flags  of 
all  nations  are  liable  to  be  assumed  by  those 
who  have  no  right  or  title  to  bear  them.  Mr. 
Stevenson  himself  fully  admits  the  extent  to 
which  the  American  flag  has  been  employed  for 
the  purpose  of  covering  this  infamous  traffic. 
The  undersigned  joins  with  Mr.  Stevenson  in 
deeply  lamenting  the  evil;  and  he  agrees  with 
him  in  thinking  that  the  United  States  ought 
not  to  be  considered  responsible  for  this  abuse 
of  their  flag.  But  if  all  inquiry  be  resisted, 
even  when  carried  no  further  than  to  ascertain 
the  nationality  of  the  vessel,  and  impunity  be 
claimed  for  the  most  lawless  and  desperate  of 
mankind,  in  the  commission  of  this  fraud,  the 
undersigned  greatly  fears  that  it  may  be  re 
garded  as  something  like  an  assumption  of  that 
responsibility  which  has  been  deprecated  by  Mr. 
Stevenson 

"  The  undersigned  renounces  all  pretension 
on  the  part  of  the  British  government  to  visit 
and  search  American  vessels  in  time  of  peace. 
Nor  is  it  as  American  that  such  vessels  are  ever 
visited ;  but  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice 
of  the  British  navy,  and,  as  the  undersigned 
believes,  of  all  navies  in  the  world,  to  ascertain 
by  visit  the  real  nationality  of  merchant-vessels 
met  with  on  the  high  seas,  if  there  be  good  rea 
son  to  apprehend  their  illegal  character 

"The  undersigned  admits,  that,  if  the  Brit 
ish  cruiser  should  possess  a  knowledge  of  the 
American  character  of  any  vessel,  his  visitation  of 
such  vessel  would  be  entirely  unjustifiable.  He 
further  admits,  that  so  much  respect  and  honor 
are  due  to  the  American  flag,  that  no  vessel 
bearing  it  ought  to  be  visited  by  a  British 
cruiser,  except  under  the  most  grave  suspicions 


and  well-founded  doubts  of  the  genuineness  of 
its  character. 

"The  undersigned,  although  with  pain,  must 
add,  that  if  such  visit  should  lead  to  the  proof 
of  the  American  origin  of  the  vessel,  and  that 
she  was  avowedly  engaged  in  the  slave-trade, 
exhibiting  to  view  the  manacles,  fetters,  and 
other  usual  implements  of  torture,  or  had  even 
a  number  of  these  unfortunate  beings  on  board, 
no  British  officer  could  interfere  further.  He 
might  give  information  to  the  cruisers  of  the 
United  States,  but  it  could  not  be  in  his  own 
power  to  arrest  or  impede  the  prosecution  of  the 
voyage  and  the 'success  of  the  undertaking. 

"It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  utmost 
caution  is  necessary  in  the  exercise  of  this  right 
claimed  by  Great  Britain.  While  we  have  re 
course  to  the  necessary,  and,  indeed,  the  only 
means  for  detecting  imposture,  the  practice  will 
be  carefully  guarded  and  limited  to  cases  of 
strong  suspicion.  The  undersigned  begs  to  as 
sure  Mr.  Stevenson  that  the  most  precise  and 
positive  instructions  have  been  issued  to  her 
Majesty's  officers  on  this  subject." 

Such  are  the  words  of  the  British  claim 
or  pretension ;  and  it  stood  in  this  form  at 
the  delivery  of  the  President's  message  to 
Congress  in  December  last;  a  message  in 
which  you  are  pleased  to  say  that  the  Brit 
ish  pretension  was  promptly  met  and  firmly 
resisted. 

I  may  now  proceed  to  a  more  particular 
examination  of  the  objections  which  you 
make  to  the  treaty. 

You  observe  that  you  think  a  just  self- 
respect  required  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  demand  of  Lord  Ashbur- 
ton  a  distinct  renunciation  of  the  British 
claim  to  search  our  vessels  previous  to  en 
tering  into  any  negotiation.  The  govern 
ment  has  thought  otherwise;  and  this  ap 
pears  to  be  your  main  objection  to  the 
treaty,  if,  indeed,  it  be  not  the  only  one 
which  is  clearly  and  distinctly  stated.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  supposed 
that,  in  this  respect,  it  stood  in  a  position 
in  which  it  had  no  occasion  to  demand  any 
thing,  or  ask  for  any  thing,  of  England. 
The  British  pretension,  whatever  it  was,  or 
however  extensive,  was  well  known  to  the 
President  at  the  date  of  his  message  to 
Congress  at  the  opening  of  the  last  session. 
And  I  must  be  allowed  to  remind  you  how 
the  President  treated  this  subject  in  that 
communication. 

"  However  desirous  the  United  States  may 
be,"  said  he,  "for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade,  they  cannot  consent  to  interpolations  into 
the  maritime  code  at  the  mere  will  and  pleasure 
of  other  governments.  We  deny  the  right  of 


LETTERS   ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


671 


any  such  interpolation  to  anyone,  or  all  the  na 
tions  of  the  earth,  without  our  consent.  We 
claim  to  have  a  voice  in  all  amendments  or 
alterations  of  that  code;  and  when  we  are  given 
to  understand,  as  in  this  instance,  by  a  foreign 
government,  that  its  treaties  with  other  nations 
cannot  be  executed  without  the  establishment 
and  enforcement  of  new  principles  of  mari 
time  police,  to  be  applied  without  our  consent, 
we  must  employ  a  language  neither  of  equiv 
ocal  import  nor  susceptible  of  misconstruction. 
American  citizens  prosecuting  a  lawful  commerce 
in  the  African  seas,  under  the  flag  of  their  coun 
try,  are  not  responsible  for  the  abuse  or  unlaw 
ful  use  of  that  flag  by  others;  nor  can  they 
rightfully,  on  account  of  any  such  alleged 
abuses,  be  interrupted,  molested,  or  detained 
while  on  the  ocean;  and  if  thus  molested  and 
detained  while  pursuing  honest  voyages  in  the 
usual  way,  and  violating  no  law  themselves, 
they  are  unquestionably  entitled  to  indemnity." 

This  declaration  of  the  President  stands  : 
not  a  syllable  of  it  has  been,  or  will  be,  re 
tracted.  The  principles  which  it  announces 
rest  on  their  inherent  justice  and  proprie 
ty,  on  their  conformity  to  public  law,  and, 
so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  on  the  deter 
mination  and  ability  of  the  country  to  main 
tain  them.  To  these  principles  the  govern 
ment  is  pledged,  and  that  pledge  it  will  be 
at  all  times  ready  to  redeem. 

But  what  is  your  own  language  on  this 
point?  You. say,  "  This  claim  (the  British 
claim),  thus  asserted  and  supported,  was 
promptly  met  and  firmly  repelled  by  the 
President  in  his  message  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  last  session  of  Congress;  and 
in  your  letter  to  me  approving  the  course 
I  had  adopted  in  relation  to  the  question  of 
the  ratification  by  France  of  the  quintuple 
treaty,  you  consider  the  principles  of  that 
message  as  the  established  policy  of  the 
government."  And  you  add,  "  So  far,  our 
national  dignity  was  uncompromitted."  If 
this  be  so,  what  is  there  which  has  since 
occurred  to  compromit  this  dignity  ?  You 
shall  yourself  be  judge  of  this ;  because 
you  say,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  your  let 
ter,  that  "  the  mutual  rights  of  the  par 
ties  are  in  this  respect  wholly  untouched." 
If,  then,  the  British  pretension  had  been 
promptly  met  and  firmly  repelled  by  the 
President's  message  ;  if,  so  far,  our  national 
dignity  had  not  been  compromitted ;  and 
if,  as  you  further  say,  our  rights  remain 
wholly  untouched  by  any  subsequent  act  or 
proceeding,  what  ground  is  there  on  which 
to  found  complaint  against  the  treaty  ? 

But  your  sentiments  on  this  point  do  not 
concur  with  the  opinions  of  your  govern 


ment.  That  government  is  of  opinion  that 
the  sentiments  of  the  message,  which  you 
so  highly  approve,  are  reaffirmed  and  cor 
roborated  by  the  treaty,  and  the  corre 
spondence  accompanying  it.  The  very  ob 
ject  sought  to  be  obtained,  in  proposing  the 
mode  adopted  for  abolishing  the  slave-trade, 
was  to  take  away  all  pretence  whatever  for 
interrupting  lawful  commerce  by  the  visi 
tation  of  American  vessels.  Allow  me  to 
refer  you,  on  this  point,  to  the  following 
passage  in  the  message  of  the  President  to 
the  Senate,  accompanying  the  treaty:  — 

"  In  my  message  at  the  commencement  of 
the  present  session  of  Congress,  I  endeavored 
to  state  the  principles  which  this  government 
supports  respecting  the  right  of  search  and  the 
immunity  of  flags.  Desirous  of  maintaining 
those  principles  fully,  at  the  same  time  that  ex 
isting  obligations  should  be  fulfilled,  I  have 
thought  it  most  consistent  with  the  dignity 
and  honor  of  the  country  that  it  should  exe 
cute  its  own  laws  and  perform  its  own  obli 
gations  by  its  own  means  and  its  own  power. 
The  examination  or  visitation  of  the  mer 
chant-vessels  of  one  nation  by  the  cruisers 
of  another,  for  any  purposes  except  those 
known  and  acknowledged  by  the  law  of  na 
tions,  under  whatever  restraints  or  regulations 
it  may  take  place,  may  lead  to  dangerous  re 
sults.  It  is  far  better  by  other  means  to  super 
sede  any  supposed  neces-ity,  or  any  motive,  for 
such  examination  or  visit  Interference  with  a 
merchant-vessel  by  an  armed  cruiser  is  a'wavs 
a  delicate  proceeding,  apt  to  touch  the  point  of 
national  honor,  as  well  as  to  affect  the  interests 
of  individuals.  It  has  been  thought,  therefore, 
expedient,  not  only  in  accordance  with  the 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  but  at  the 
same  time  as  removing  all  pretext  on  the  part 
of  others  for  violating  the  immunities  of  the 
American  flag  upon  the  seas,  as  they  exist  and 
are  defined  by  the  law  of  nations,  to  enter  into 
the  articles  now  submitted  to  the  Se1  ate. 

u  The  treaty  which  I  now  submit  to  you  pro 
poses  no  alteration,  mitigation,  or  modification 
of  the  rules  of  the  law  of  nations.  It  provides 
simply,  that  each  of  the  two  governments  shall 
maintain  on  the  coast  of  Africa  a  sufficient 
squadron  to  enforce,  separately  and  respec 
tively,  the  laws,  rights,  and  obligations  of  the 
two  countries  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade." 

In  the  actual  posture  of  things,  the 
President  thought  that  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  standing  on  its  own 
rights  and  its  own  solemn  declarations, 
would  only  weaken  its  position  by  mak 
ing  such  a  demand  as  appears  to  you  to 
have  been  expedient.  We  maintain  the 
public  law  of  the  world  as  we  receive  it 


672 


APPENDIX. 


and  understand  it  to  be  established.  We 
defend  our  own  rights  and  our  own  honor, 
meeting  all  aggression  at  the  boundary. 
Here  we  may  well  stop. 

You  are  pleased  to  observe,  that  "  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  assertion  of  the 
British  claim,  in  the  correspondence  of  the 
British  secretaries,  and  of  its  denial  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  the 
eyes  of  Europe  were  upon  these  two  great 
naval  powers  ;  one  of  which  had  advanced 
a  pretension,  and  avowed  her  determina 
tion  to  enforce  it,  which  might  at  any  mo 
ment  bring  them  into  collision." 

It  is  certainly  true  that  the  attention  of 
Europe  has  been  very  much  awakened,  of 
late  years,  to  the  general  subject,  and  quite 
alive,  tilso,  to  whatever  might  take  place  in 
regard  to  it  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain.  And  it  is  highly  satisfactory 
to  find,  that,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  the 
opinion  is  universal  that  the  government 
of  the  United  States  has  fully  sustained  its 
rights  and  its  dignity  by  the  treaty  which 
has  been  concluded.  Europe,  we  believe,  is 
happy  to  see  that  a  collision,  which  might 
have  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  whole  civ 
ilized  world,  has  been  avoided  in  a  manner 
which  reconciles  the  performance  of  a  high 
national  duty,  and  the  fulfilment  of  posi 
tive  stipulations,  with  the  perfect  immunity 
of  flags  and  the  equality  of  nations  upon 
the  ocean.  I  must  be  permitted  to  add, 
that,  from  every  agent  of  the  government 
abroad  who  has  been  heard  from  on  the 
subject,  with  the  single  exception  of  your 
own  letter,  (an  exception  most  deeply  re 
gretted,)  as  well  as  from  every  part  of 
Europe  where  maritime  rights  have  advo 
cates  and  defenders,  we  have  received 
nothing  but  congratulation.  And  at  this 
moment,  if  the  general  sources  of  informa 
tion  may  be  trusted,  our  example  has  rec 
ommended  itself  already  to  the  regard  of 
states  the  most  jealous  of  British  ascen 
dency  at  sea  ;  and  the  treaty  against  which 
you  remonstrate  may  soon  come  to  be  es 
teemed  by  them  as  a  fit  model  for  imitation. 

Toward  the  close  of  your  despatch,  you 
are  pleased  to  say :  "  By  the  recent  treaty 
we  are  to  keep  a  squadron  upon  the  coast  of 
Africa.  We  have  kept  one  there  for  years ; 
during  the  whole  term,  indeed,  of  these 
efforts  to  put  a  stop  to  this  most  iniqui 
tous  commerce.  The  effect  of  the  treaty 
is,  therefore,  to  render  it  obligatory  upon  us, 
by  a  convention,  to  do  what  we  have  long 
done  voluntarily ;  to  place  our  municipal 
laws,  in  some  measure,  beyond  the  reach  of 


Congress."  Should  the  effect  of  the  treaty 
be  to  place  our  municipal  laws,  in  some 
measure,  beyond  the  reach  of  Congress,  it 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  all  treaties  contain 
ing  obligations  necessarily  do  this.  All 
treaties  of  commerce  do  it;  and,  indeed, 
there  is  hardly  a  treaty  existing,  to  which 
the  United  States  are  party,  which  does 
not,  to  some  extent,  or  in  some  way,  re 
strain  the  legislative  power.  Treaties  could 
not  be  made  without  producing  this  effect. 

But  your  remark  would  seem  to  imply, 
that,  in  your  judgment,  there  is  something 
derogatory  to  the  character  and  dignity 
of  the  country  in  thus  stipulating  with  a 
foreign  power  for  a  concurrent  effort  to 
execute  the  laws  of  each.  It  would  be  a 
sufficient  refutation  of  this  objection  to 
say,  that,  if  in  this  arrangement  there  be 
any  thing  derogatory  to  the  character  and 
dignity  of  one  party,  it  must  be  equally  de 
rogatory,  since  the  stipulation  is  perfectly 
mutual,  to  the  character  and  dignity  of 
both.  But  it  is  derogatory  to  the  char 
acter  and  dignity  of  neither.  The  objec 
tion  seems  to  proceed  still  upon  the  implied 
ground  that  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade 
is  more  a  duty  of  Great  Britain,  or  a  more 
leading  object  with  her,  than  it  is  or  should 
be  with  us ;  as  if,  in  this  great  effort  of  civ 
ilized  nations  to  do  away  the  most  cruel 
traffic  that  ever  scourged  or  disgraced  the 
world,  we  had  not  as  high  and  honorable, 
as  just  and  merciful,  a  part  to  act,  as  any 
other  nation  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Let  it  be  for  ever  remembered,  that  in  this 
great  work  of  humanity  and  justice  the 
United  States  took  the  lead  themselves. 
This  government  declared  the  slave-trade 
unlawful ;  and  in  this  declaration  it  has 
been  followed  by  the  great  powers  of 
Europe.  This  government  declared  the 
slave-trade  to  be  piracy  ;  and  in  this,  too, 
its  example  has  been  followed  by  other 
states.  This  government,  this  young  gov 
ernment,  springing  up  in  this  new  world 
within  half  a  century,  founded  on  the 
broadest  principles  of  civil  liberty,  and 
sustained  by  the  moral  sense  and  intelli 
gence  of  the  people,  has  gone  in  advance 
of  all  other  nations  in  summoning  the  civ 
ilized  world  to  a  common  effort  to  put 
down  and  destroy  a  nefarious  traffic  re 
proachful  to  human  nature.  It  has  not 
deemed,  and  it  does  not  deem,  that  it  suffers 
any  derogation  from  its  character  or  its  dig 
nity,  if,  in  seeking  to  fulfil  this  sacred  duty, 
it  act,  as  far  as  necessary,  on  fair  and  equal 
terms  of  concert  with  other  powers  having 


LETTERS  ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


673 


in  view  the  same  praiseworthy  object.  Such 
were  its  sentiments  when  it  entered  into  the 
solemn  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent ; 
such  were  its  sentiments  when  it  requested 
England  to  concur  with  us  in  declaring  the 
slave-trade  to  be  piracy ;  and  such  are  the 
sentiments  which  it  has  manifested  on  all 
other  proper  occasions. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  to  repeat  the  ex 
pression  of  the  President's  deep  regret  at  the 
general  tone  and  character  of  your  letter, 
and  to  assure  you  of  the  great  happiness  it 
would  have  afforded  him  if,  concurring  with 
the  judgment  of  the  President  and  Senate, 
concurring  with  what  appears  to  be  the 
general  sense  of  the  country,  concurring  in 
all  the  manifestations  of  enlightened  public 
opinion  in  Europe,  you  had  seen  nothing  in 
the  treaty  of  the  9th  of  August  to  which  you 
could  not  give  your  cordial  approbation. 
I  have,  &c. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
LEWIS  CASS,  ESQ.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Webster  to  General  Cass. 

Department  of  State,  Washington, 
December  20,  1842. 

Sm,  — Your  letter  of  the  llth  instant 
has  been  submitted  to  the  President.  He 
directs  me  to  say,  in  reply,  that  he  continues 
to  regard  your  correspondence,  of  which 
this  letter  is  part,  as  being  quite  irregular 
from  the  beginning.  You  had  asked  leave 
to  retire  from  your  mission  ;  the  leave  was 
granted  by  the  President,  with  kind  and 
friendly  remarks  upon  the  manner  in  which 
you  had  discharged  its  duties.  Having 
asked  for  this  honorable  recall,  which  was 
promptly  given,  you  afterward  addressed 
to  this  department  your  letter  of  the  3d  of 
October,  which,  however  it  may  appear  to 
you,  the  President  cannot  but  consider  as 
a  remonstrance,  a  protest,  against  the  treaty 
of  the  9th  of  August ;  in  other  words,  an  at 
tack  upon  his  administration  for  the  nego 
tiation  and  conclusion  of  that  treaty.  He 
certainly  was  not  prepared  for  this.  It 
came  upon  him  with  no  small  surprise,  and 
he  still  feels  that  you  must  have  been,  at 
the  moment,  under  the  influence  of  tempo 
rary  impressions,  which  he  cannot  but  hope 
have  ere  now  worn  away. 

A  few  remarks  upon  some  of  the  points 
of  your  last  letter  must  now  close  the  cor 
respondence. 

In  the  first  place,  you  object  to  my  hav 
ing  called  your  letter  of  October  3d  a  "  pro 


test  or  remonstrance  "  against  a  transaction 
of  the  government,  and  observe  that  you 
must  have  been  unhappy  in  the  mode  of 
expressing  yourself,  if  you  were  liable  to 
this  charge. 

What  other  construction  your  letter  will 
bear,  I  cannot  perceive.  The  transaction 
-was  finished.  No  letter  or  remarks  of  your 
self,  or  any  one  else,  could  undo  it,  if  desir 
able.  Your  opinions  were  unsolicited.  If 
given  as  a  citizen,  then  it  was  altogether 
unusual  to  address  them  to  this  department 
in  an  official  despatch ;  if  as  a  public  func 
tionary,  the  whole  subject-matter  was  quite 
aside  from  the  duties  of  your  particular 
station.  In  your  letter  you  did  not  pro 
pose  any  thing  to  be  done,  but  objected  to 
what  had  been  done.  You  did  not  suggest 
any  method  of  remedying  what  you  were 
pleased  to  consider  a  defect,  but  stated 
what  you  thought  to  be  reasons  for  fearing 
its  consequences.  You  declared  that  there 
had  been,  in  your  opinion,  an  omission  to 
assert  American  rights ;  to  which  omission 
you  gave  the  department  to  understand 
that  you  would  never  have  consented. 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  but  protest 
and  remonstrance ;  and,  though  your  letter 
be  not  formally  entitled  such,  I  cannot  see 
that  it  can  be  construed,  in  effect,  as  any 
thing  else ;  and  I  must  continue  to  think, 
therefore,  that  the  terms  used  are  entirely 
applicable  and  proper. 

In  the  next  place,  you  say :  "  You  give 
me  to  understand  that  the  communications 
which  have  passed  between  us  on  this  sub 
ject  are  to  be  published,  and  submitted  to 
the  great  tribunal  of  public  opinion." 

It  would  have  been  better  if  you  had 
quoted  my  remark  with  entire  correctness. 
What  I  said  was,  not  that  the  communica 
tions  which  have  passed  between  us  are  to 
be  published,  or  must  be  published,  but  that 
"  it  may  become  necessary  hereafter  to  pub 
lish  your  letter,  in  connection  with  other 
correspondence  of  the  mission;  and,  al 
though  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  you 
looked  to  such  publication,  because  such  a 
presumption  would  impute  to  you  a  claim 
to  put  forth  your  private  opinions  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  President  and  Senate,  in  a 
transaction  finished  and  concluded,  through 
the  imposing  form  of  a  public  despatch  ; 
yet,  if  published,  it  cannot  be  foreseen  how 
far  England  might  hereafter  rely  on  your 
authority  for  a  construction  favorable  to 
her  own  pretensions,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  interest  and  honor  of  the  United  States." 

In  another  part  of  your  letter  you  ob- 


43 


674 


APPENDIX. 


serve :  "  The  publication  of  my  letter, 
which  is  to  produce  this  result,  is  to  be 
the  act  of  the  government,  and  not  my  act. 
But  if  the  President  should  think  that  the 
slightest  injury  to  the  public  interest  would 
ensue  from  the  disclosure  of  my  views,  the 
letter  may  be  buried  in  the  archives  of  the 
department,  and  thus  forgotten  and  ren 
dered  harmless." 

To  this  I  have  to  remark,  in  the  first 
place,  that  instances  have  occurred  in  other 
times,  not  unknown  to  you,  in  which  highly 
important  letters  from  ministers  of  the 
United  States,  in  Europe,  to  their  own  gov 
ernment,  have  found  their  way  into  the 
newspapers  of  Europe,  when  that  govern 
ment  itself  held  it  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  make 
such  letters  public. 

But  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue  a 
topic  like  this. 

You  are  pleased  to  ask :  "  Is  it  the  duty 
of  a  diplomatic  agent  to  receive  all  the 
communications  of  his  government,  and  to 
carry  into  effect  their  instructions  sub  silen- 
tio,  whatever  may  be  his  own  sentiments  in 
relation  to  them ;  or  is  he  not  bound,  as 
a  faithful  representative,  to  communicate 
freely,  but  respectfully,  his  own  views,  that 
these  may  be  considered,  and  receive  their 
due  weight,  in  that  particular  case,  or  in 
other  circumstances  involving  similar  con 
siderations  1  It  seems  to  me  that  the  bare 
enunciation  of  the  principle  is  all  that  is 
necessary  for  my  justification.  I  am  speak 
ing  now  of  the  propriety  of  my  action,  not 
of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  performed. 
I  may  have  executed  the  task  well  or  ill. 
I  may  have  introduced  topics  unadvisedly, 
and  urged  them  indiscreetly.  All  this  I 
leave  without  remark.  I  am  only  endeavor 
ing  here  to  free  myself  from  the  serious 
charge  which  you  bring  against  me.  If 
I  have  misapprehended  the  duties  of  an 
American  diplomatic  agent  upon  this  sub 
ject,  I  am  well  satisfied  to  have  withdrawn, 
by  a  timely  resignation,  from  a  position  in 
which  my  own  self-respect  would  not  per 
mit  me  to  remain.  And  I  may  express  the 
conviction,  that  there  is  no  government, 
certainly  none  this  side  of  Constantinople, 
which  would  not  encourage  rather  than  re 
buke  the  free  expression  of  the  views  of 
their  representatives  in  foreign  countries." 

I  answer,  certainly  not.  In  the  letter  to 
which  you  were  replying  it  was  fully  stated, 
that,  "  in  common  with  every  other  citizen 
of  the  republic,  you  have  an  unquestionable 
right  to  form  opinions  upon  public  transac 


tions  and  the  conduct  of  public  men.  But 
it  will  hardly  be  thought  to  be  among  either 
the  duties  or  the  privileges  of  a  minister 
abroad  to  m^ke  formal  remonstrances  and 
protests  against  proceedings  of  the  various 
branches  of  the  government  at  home,  upon 
subjects  in  relation  to  which  he  himself  has 
not  been  charged  with  any  duty,  or  par 
taken  any  responsibility." 

You  have  not  been  requested  to  bestow 
your  approbation  upon  the  treat}',  however 
gratifying  it  would  have  been  to  the  Presi 
dent  to  see  that,  in  that  respect,  you  united 
with  other  distinguished  public  agents 
abroad.  Like  all  citizens  of  the  republic, 
you  are  quite  at  liberty  to  exercise  your 
own  judgment  upon  that  as  upon  other 
transactions.  But  neither  your  observa 
tions  nor  this  concession  cover  the  case. 
They  do  not  show,  that,  as  a  public  minis 
ter  abroad,  it  is  a  part  of  your  official  func 
tions,  in  a  public  despatch,  to  remonstrate 
against  the  conduct  of  the  government  at 
home  in  relation  to  a  transaction  in  which 
you  bore  no  part,  and  for  which  you  were 
in  no  way  answerable.  The  President  and 
Senate  must  be  permitted  to  judge  for  them 
selves  in  a  matter  solely  within  their  con 
trol.  Nor  do  I  know  that,  in  complaining 
of  your  protest  against  their  proceedings  in 
a  case  of  this  kind,  any  thing  has  been  done 
to  warrant,  on  your  part,  an  invidious  and 
unjust  reference  to  Constantinople.  If  you 
could  show,  by  the  general  practice  of  diplo 
matic  functionaries  in  the  civilized  part  of 
the  world,  and  more  especially,  if  you  could 
show  by  any  precedent  drawn  from  the  con 
duct  of  the  many  distinguished  men  who 
have  represented  the  government  of  the 
United  States  abroad,  that  your  letter  of 
the  3d  of  October  was,  in  its  general  object, 
tone,  and  character,  within  the  usual  limits 
of  diplomatic  correspondence,  you  may  be 
quite  assured  that  the  President  would  not 
have  recourse  to  the  code  of  Turkey  in 
order  to  find  precedents  the  other  way. 

You  complain  that,  in  the  letter  from 
this  department  of  the  14th  of  November,  a 
statement  contained  in  yours  of  the  3d  of 
October  is  called  a  tissue  of  mistakes,  and 
you  attempt  to  show  the  impropriety  of  this 
appellation.  Let  the  point  be  distinctly 
stated,  and  what  you  say  in  reply  be  then 
considered. 

In  your  letter  of  October  3d  you  remark, 
that "  England  then  urged  the  United  States 
to  enter  into  a  conventional  arrangement, 
by  which  we  might  be  pledged  to  concur 
with  her  in  measures  for  the  suppression  of 


LETTERS  ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


G75 


the  slave-trade.  Until  then,  we  had  exe 
cuted  our  own  laws  in  our  own  way  ;  but, 
yielding  to  this  application,  and  departing 
from  our  former  principle  of  avoiding 
European  combinations  upon  subjects  not 
American,  we  stipulated  in  a  solemn  treaty 
that  we  would  carry  into  effect  our  own 
laws,  and  fixed  the  minimum  force  we 
would  employ  for  that  purpose." 

The  letter  of  this  department  of  the  14th 
of  November,  having  quoted  this  passage, 
proceeds  to  observe,  that  "  the  President 
cannot  conceive  how  you  should  have  been 
led  to  adventure  upon  such  a  statement  as 
this.  It  is  but  a  tissue  of  mistakes.  Eng 
land  did  not  urge  the  United  States  to  enter 
into  this  conventional  arrangement.  The 
United  States  yielded  to  no  application 
from  England.  The  proposition  for  abolish 
ing  the  slave-trade,  as  it  stands  in  the  treaty, 
was  an  American  proposition  ;  it  originated 
with  the  executive  government  of  the  Unit 
ed  States,  which  cheerfully  assumes  all  its 
responsibility.  It  stands  upon  it  as  its  own 
mode  of  fulfilling  its  duties  and  accom 
plishing  its  objects.  Nor  have  the  United 
States  departed  in  the  slightest  degree  from 
their  former  principles  of  avoiding  Eu 
ropean  combinations  upon  subjects  not 
American ;  because  the  abolition  of  the 
African  slave-trade  is  an  American  subject 
as  emphatically  as  it  is  a  European  subject, 
and,  indeed,  more  so,  inasmuch  as  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  took  the  first 
great  step  in  declaring  that  trade  unlawful, 
and  in  attempting  its  extinction.  The  abo 
lition  of  this  traffic  is  an  object  of  the  high 
est  interest  to  the  American  people  and 
the  American  government;  and  you  seem 
strangely  to  have  overlooked  altogether 
the  important  fact,  that  nearly  thirty  years 
ag°>  by  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  the  United 
States  bound  themselves,  by  solemn  com 
pact  with  England,  to  continue  their  efforts 
to  promote  its  entire  abolition ;  both  parties 
pledging  themselves  by  that  treaty  to  use 
their  best  endeavors  to  accomplish  so  de 
sirable  an  object." 

Now,  in  answer  to  this,  you  observe  in 
your  last  letter :  "  That  the  particular  mode 
in  which  the  governments  should  act  in  con 
cert,  as  finally  arranged  in  the  treaty,  was 
suggested  by  yourself,  I  never  doubted. 
And  if  this  is  the  construction  I  am  to  give 
to  your  denial  of  my  correctness,  there  is 
no  difficulty  upon  the  subject.  The  ques 
tion  between  us  is  untouched.  All  I  said 
was,  that  England  continued  to  prosecute 
the  matter ;  that  she  presented  it  for  nego 


tiation,  and  that  we  thereupon  consented  to 
its  introduction.  And  if  Lord  Ashburton 
did  not  come  out  with  instructions  from  his 
government  to  endeavor  to  effect  some  ar 
rangement  upon  this  subject,  the  world  has 
strangely  misunderstood  one  of  the  great 
objects  of  his  mission,  and  I  have  misun 
derstood  that  paragraph  in  your  first  note, 
where  you  say  that  Lord  Ashburton  comes 
with  full  powers  to  negotiate  and  settle  all 
matters  in  discussion  between  England  and 
the  United  States.  But  the  very  fact  of 
his  coming  here,  and  of  his  acceding  to  any 
stipulations  respecting  the  slave-trade,  is 
conclusive  proof  that  his  government  were 
desirous  to  obtain  the  co-operation  of  the 
United  States.  I  had  supposed  that  our 
government  would  scarcely  take  the  initia 
tive  in  this  matter,  and  urge  it  upon  that  of 
Great  Britain,  either  in  Washington  or  in 
London.  If  it  did  so,  I  can  only  express 
my  regret,  and  confess  that  I  have  been  led 
inadvertently  into  an  error." 

It  would  appear  from  all  this,  that  that 
which,  in  your  first  letter,  appeared  as  a 
direct  statement  of  facts,  of  which  you 
would  naturally  be  presumed  to  have  had 
knowledge,  sinks  at  last  into  inferences  and 
conjectures.  But,  in  attempting  to  escape 
from  some  of  the  mistakes  of  this  tissue, 
you  have  fallen  into  others.  "All  I  said 
was,"  you  observe,  "  that  England  con 
tinued  to  prosecute  the  matter;  that  she 
presented  it  for  negotiation,  and  that  we 
thereupon  consented  to  its  introduction." 
Now  the  English  minister  no  more  pre 
sented  this  subject  for  negotiation  than  the 
government  of  the  United  States  presented 
it.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  United  States 
consented  to  its  introduction  in  any  other 
sense  than  it  may  be  said  that  the  British 
minister  consented  to  it.  Will  you  be  good 
enough  to  review  the  series  of  your  own 
assertions  on  this  subject,  and  see  whether 
they  can  possibly  be  regarded  merely  as  a 
statement  of  your  own  inferences  ?  Your 
only  authentic  fact  is  a  general  one,  that 
the  British  minister  came  clothed  with  full 
power  to  negotiate  and  settle  all  matters  in 
discussion.  This,  you  say,  is  conclusive 
proof  that  his  government  was  desirous  to 
obtain  the  co-operation  of  the  United  States 
respecting  the  slave-trade;  and  then  you 
infer  that  England  continued  to  prosecute 
this  matter,  and  presented  it  for  negotia 
tion,  and  that  the  United  States  consented 
to  its  introduction ;  and  give  to  this  infer 
ence  the  shape  of  a  direct  statement  of  a 
fact. 


676 


APPENDIX. 


You  might  have  made  the  same  remarks, 
and  with  the  same  propriety,  in  relation  to 
the  subject  of  the  "  Creole,"  that  of  im 
pressment,  the  extradition  of  fugitive  crim 
inals,  or  any  thing  else  embraced  in  the 
treaty  or  in  the  correspondence,  and  then 
have  converted  these  inferences  of  your 
own  into  so  many  facts.  And  it  is  upon 
conjectures  like  these,  it  is  upon  such  in 
ferences  of  your  own,  that  you  make  the 
direct  and  formal  statement  in  your  letter 
of  the  3d  of  October,  that  "  England  then 
urged  the  United  States  to  enter  into  a 
conventional  arrangement,  by  which  we 
might  be  pledged  to  concur  with  her  in 
measures  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade.  Until  then,  we  had  executed  our 
own  laws  in  our  own  way ;  but,  yielding  to 
this  application,  and  departing  from  our 
former  principle  of  avoiding  European 
combinations  upon  subjects  not  American, 
we  stipulated  in  a  solemn  treaty  that  we 
would  carry  into  effect  our  own  laws,  and 
fixed  the  minimum  force  we  would  employ 
for  that  purpose." 

The  President  was  well  warranted,  there 
fore,  in  requesting  your  serious  reconsider 
ation  and  review  of  that  statement. 

Suppose  your  letter  to  go  before  the 
public  unanswered  and  uncontradicted ; 
suppose  it  to  mingle  itself  with  the  general 
political  history  of  the  country,  as  an  of 
ficial  letter  among  the  archives  of  the  De 
partment  of  State,  would  not  the  general 
mass  of  readers  understand  you  as  reciting 
facts,  rather  than  as  drawing  your  own 
conclusions  ?  as  stating  history,  rather  than 
as  presenting  an  argument  ?  It  is  of  an 
incorrect  narrative  that  the  President  com 
plains.  It  is  that,  in  your  hotel  at  Paris, 
you  should  undertake  to  write  a  history  of 
a  very  delicate  part  of  a  negotiation  car 
ried  on  at  Washington,  with  which  you 
had  nothing  to  do,  and  of  the  history  of 
which  you  had  no  authentic  information ; 
and  which  history,  as  you  narrate  it,  re 
flects  not  a  little  on  the  independence, 
wisdom,  and  public  spirit  of  the  adminis 
tration. 

As  of  the  history  of  this  part  of  the  ne 
gotiation  you  were  not  well  informed,  the 
President  cannot  but  think  it  would  have 
been  more  just  in  you  to  have  refrained 
from  any  attempt  to  give  an  account 
of  it. 

You  observe,  further :  "  I  never  men 
tioned  in  my  despatch  to  you,  nor  in  any 
manner  whatever,  that  our  government  had 
conceded  to  that  of  England  the  right  to 


search  our  ships.  That  idea,  however,  per 
vades  your  letter,  and  is  very  apparent  in 
that  part  of  it  which  brings  to  my  observa 
tion  the  possible  effect  of  my  views  upon 
the  English  government.  But  in  this  you 
do  me,  though  I  am  sure  unintentionally, 
great  injustice.  I  repeatedly  state  that 
the  recent  treaty  leaves  the  rights  of  the 
parties  as  it  found  them.  My  difficulty  is 
not  that  we  have  made  a  positive  conces 
sion,  but  that  we  have  acted  unadvisedly 
in  not  making  the  abandonment  of  this 
pretension  a  previous  condition  to  any  con 
ventional  arrangement  upon  the  general 
subject." 

On  this  part  of  your  letter  I  must  be  al 
lowed  to  make  two  remarks. 

The  first  is,  inasmuch  as  the  treaty  gives 
no  color  or  pretext  whatever  to  any  right  of 
searching  our  ships,  a  declaration  against 
such  a  right  would  have  been  no  more 
suitable  to  this  treaty  than  a  declaration 
against  the  right  of  sacking  our  towns  in 
time  of  peace,  or  any  other  outrage. 

The  rights  of  merchant-vessels  of  the 
United  States  on  the  high  seas,  as  under 
stood  by  this  government,  have  been  clearly 
and  fully  asserted.  As  asserted,  they  will 
be  maintained ;  nor  would  a  declaration 
such  as  you  propose  have  increased  either 
its  resolution  or  its  ability  in  this  respect. 
The  government  of  the  United  States  relies 
on  its  own  power,  and  on  the  effective  sup 
port  of  the  people,  to  assert  successfully 
all  the  rights  of  all  its  citizens,  on  the  sea 
as  well  as  on  the  land ;  and  it  asks  respect 
for  these  rights  not  as  a  boon  or  favor  from 
any  nation.  The  President's  message,  most 
certainly,  is  a  clear  declaration  of  what  the 
country  understands  to  be  its  rights,  and 
his  determination  to  maintain  them  ;  not  a 
mere  promise  to  negotiate  for  these  rights, 
or  to  endeavor  to  bring  other  powers  into 
an  acknowledgment  of  them,  either  express 
or  implied.  Whereas,  if  I  understand  the 
meaning  of  this  part  of  your  letter,  you 
would  have  advised  that  something  should 
have  been  offered  to  England  which  she 
might  have  regarded  as  a  benefit,  but 
coupled  with  such  a  declaration  or  condi 
tion  as  that,  if  she  received  the  boon,  it 
would  have  been  a  recognition  by  her  of  a 
claim  which  we  make  as  matter  of  right. 
The  President's  view  of  the  proper  duty  of 
the  government  has  certainly  been  quite 
different.  Being  convinced  that  the  doc 
trine  asserted  by  this  government  is  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  law  of  nations,  and 
feeling  the  competency  of  the  government 


LETTERS   ON  THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


677 


to  uphold  and  enforce  it  for  itself,  he  has 
not  sought,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  sedu 
lously  avoided,  to  change  this  ground,  and 
to  place  the  just  rights  of  the  country  upon 
the  assent,  express  or  implied,  of  any  power 
whatever. 

The  government  thought  no  skilfully  ex 
torted  promises  necessary  in  any  such  cases. 
It  asks  no  such  pledges  of  any  nation.  If 
its  character  for  ability  and  readiness  to 
protect  and  defend  its  own  rights  and  dig 
nity  is  not  sufficient  to  preserve  them  from 
violation,  no  interpolation  of  promise  to  re 
spect  them,  ingeniously  woven  into  treaties, 
would  be  likely  to  afford  such  protection. 
And  as  our  rights  and  liberties  depend  for 
existence  upon  our  power  to  maintain  them, 
general  and  vague  protests  are  not  likely 
to  be  more  effectual  than  the  Chinese 
method  of  defending  their  towns,  by  paint 
ing  grotesque  and  hideous  figures  on  the 
walls  to  fright  away  assailing  foes. 

My  other  remark  on  this  portion  of  your 
letter  is  this  :  — 

Suppose  a  declaration'  to  the  effect  that 
this  treaty  should  not  be  considered  as 
sacrificing  any  American  rights  had  been 
appended,  and  the  treaty,  thus  fortified, 
had  been  sent  to  Great  Britain,  as  you  pro 
pose;  and  suppose  that  that  government, 
with  equal  ingenuity,  had  appended  an 
equivalent  written  declaration  that  it  should 
not  be  considered  as  sacrificing  any  British 
right,  how  much  more  defined  would  have 
been  the  rights  of  either  party,  or  how 
much  clearer  the  meaning  and  interpreta 
tion  of  the  treaty,  by  these  reservations  on 
both  sides  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  what  is 
the  value  of  a  protest  on  one  side,  balanced 
by  an  exactly  equivalent  protest  on  the 
other  ? 

No  nation  is  presumed  to  sacrifice  its 
rights,  or  give  up  what  justly  belongs  to  it, 
unless  it  expressly  stipulates  that,  for  some 
good  reason  or  adequate  consideration,  it 
does  make  such  relinquishment ;  and  an 
unnecessary  asseveration  that  it  does  not 
intend  to  sacrifice  just  rights  would  seem 
only  calculated  to  invite  aggression.  Such 
proclamations  would  seem  better  devised 
for  concealing  weakness  and  apprehension, 
than  for  manifesting  conscious  strength 
and  self-reliance,  or  for  inspiring  respect  in 
others. 

Toward  the  end  of  your  letter  you  are 


pleased  to  observe :  "  The  rejection  of  a 
treaty,  duly  negotiated,  is  a  serious  ques 
tion,  to  be  avoided  whenever  it  can  be 
without  too  great  a  sacrifice.  Though  the 
national  faith  is  not  actually  committed, 
still  it  is  more  or  less  engaged.  And  there 
were  peculiar  circumstances,  growing  out 
of  long-standing  difficulties,  which  rendered 
an  amicable  arrangement  of  the  various 
matters  in  dispute  with  England  a  subject 
of  great  national  interest.  But  the  nego 
tiation  of  a  treaty  is  a  far  different  sub 
ject.  Topics  are  omitted  or  introduced  at 
the  discretion  of  the  negotiators,  and  they 
are  responsible,  to  use  the  language  of  an 
eminent  and  able  Senator,  for  '  what  it 
contains  and  what  it  omits.'  This  treaty, 
in  my  opinion,  omits  a  most  important  and 
necessary  stipulation  ;  and  therefore,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  its  negotiation,  in  this  partic 
ular,  was  unfortunate  for  the  country." 

The  President  directs  me  to  say,  in  reply 
to  this,  that  in  the  treaty  of  Washington 
no  topics  were  omitted,  and  no  topics  intro 
duced,  at  the  mere  discretion  of  the  nego 
tiator;  that  the  negotiation  proceeded  from 
step  to  step,  and  from  day  to  day,  under 
his  own  immediate  supervision  and  direc 
tion  ;  that  he  himself  takes  the  responsi 
bility  for  what  the  treaty  contains  and 
what  it  omits,  and  cheerfully  leaves  the 
merits  of  the  whole  to  the  judgment  of  the 
country. 

I  now  conclude  this  letter,  and  close  this 
correspondence,  by  repeating  once  more 
the  expression  of  the  President's  regret 
that  you  should  have  commenced  it  by 
your  letter  of  the  3d  of  October. 

It  is  painful  to  him  to  have  with  you 
any  cause  of  difference.  He  has  a  just 
appreciation  of  your  character  and  your 
public  services  at  home  and  abroad.  He 
cannot  but  persuade  himself  that  you  must 
be  aware  yourself,  by  this  time,  that  your 
letter  of  October  was  written  under  erro 
neous  impressions,  and  that  there  is  no 
foundation  for  the  opinions  respecting  the 
treaty  which  it  expresses ;  and  that  it  would 
have  been  far  better  on  all  accounts  if  no 
such  letter  had  been  written. 
I  have,  &c. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

LEWIS  CASS,  ESQ  ,  Late  Minister  of  the  United 
States  at  Paris. 


678 


APPENDIX. 


THE    HULSEMANN    LETTER, 


[As  the  authorship  of  this  remarkable 
paper  has  sometimes  been  imputed  to 
another  person,  it  may  be  proper  to  give 
the  facts  respecting  its  preparation,  al 
though  they  involve  nothing  more  impor 
tant  than  a  question  of  literary  interest. 

Mr.  Webster,  as  has  been  stated,  arrived 
at  Marshfield  on  the  9th  of  October,  1850, 
where  he  remained  for  the  space  of  two 
weeks.  He  brought  with  him  the  papers 
relating  to  this  controversy  with  Austria. 
Before  lie  left  Washington,  he  gave  to  Mr. 
Hunter,  a  gentleman  then  and  still  filling 
an  important  post  in  the  Department  of 
State,  verbal  instructions  concerning  some 
of  the  points  which  would  require  to  be 
touched  in  an  answer  to  Mr.  Hiilsemann's 
letter  of  September  30th,  and  requested  Mr. 
Hunter  to  prepare  a  draft  of  such  an  an 
swer.  This  was  done,  and  Mr.  Hunter's 
draft  of  an  answer  was  forwarded  to  Mr. 
Webster  at  Marshfield.  On  the  20th  of 
October,  1850,  Mr.  Webster,  being  far  from 
well,  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Everett,1  re 
questing  him  also  to  prepare  a  draft  of  a 
reply  to  Mr.  Hiilsemann,  at  the  same  time 
sending  to  Mr.  Everett  a  copy  of  Mr.  Hiil 
semann's  letter  and  of  President  Taylor's 
message  to  the  Senate  relating  to  Mr. 
Mann's  mission  to  Hungary.2  On  the  21st 
Mr.  Webster  went  to  his  farm  in  Franklin, 
New  Hampshire,  where  he  remained  until 
the  4th  of  November.  While  there  he  re 
ceived  from  Mr.  Everett  a  draft  of  an  an 
swer  to  Mr.  Hiilsemann,  which  was  written 
by  Mr  Everett  between  the  21st  and  the 
24th  of  October. 

Soon  after  Mr.  Webster's  death,  it  was 
rumored  that  the  real  author  of  "  the  Hiil 
semann  letter"  was  Mr.  Hunter,  —  a  rumor 
for  which  Mr.  Hunter  himself  was  in  no 
way  responsible.  At  a  later  period,  in  the 
summer  of  1853,  the  statement  obtained 
currency  in  the  newspapers  that  Mr.  Ever 
ett  wrote  this  celebrated  despatch,  and 
many  comments  were  made  upon  the  sup 
posed  fact  that  Mr.  Everett  had  claimed  its 
authorship.  The  facts  are,  that,  while  at 
Eranklin,  Mr.  Webster,  with  Mr.  Hunter's 
and  Mr.  Everett's  drafts  both  before  him, 
went  over  the  whole  subject,  making  con 
siderable  changes  in  Mr.  Everett's  draft, 
striking  out  entire  paragraphs  with  his  pen, 
altering  some  phrases,  and  writing  new 
paragraphs  of  his  own,  but  adopting  Mr. 
Everett's  draft  as  the  basis  of  the  official 

1  Mr.  Everett  had  then  resigned  the  Presi 
dency  of  Harvard  College. 

2  'Whether  Mr.  Hunter's  draft  was  also  sent 
to  Mr.  Everett,  I  do  not  know.     The  internal 
evidence  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  was; 
but  the  fact  is  not  material. 


paper ;  a  purpose  which  he  expressed  to 
Mr.  Everett  on  his  return  to  Boston  toward 
Washington.  Subsequently,  when  he  had 
arrived  in  Washington,  Mr.  Webster  caused 
a  third  draft  to  be  made,  in  the  State  De 
partment,  from  Mr.  Everett's  paper  and  his 
own  additions  and  alterations.  On  this 
third  draft  he  made  still  other  changes  and 
additions,  and,  v»hen  the  whole  was  com 
pleted  to  his  own  satisfaction,  the  official 
letter  was  drawn  out  by  a  clerk,  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  President,  and,  being  signed 
by  Mr.  Webster,  was  sent  to  Mr.  Hiilse 
mann.1 

There  are,  no  doubt,  passages  and  ex 
pressions  in  this  letter  which  are  in  a  tone 
not  usual  with  Mr.  Webster  in  his  diplo 
matic  papers.  How  he  himself  regarded 
the  criticisms  that  might  be  made  upon  it 
may  be  seen  from  the  following  note  :  — 

[TO   MR.    TICKNOR.] 
"  "Washington,  January  16,  1851. 

"Mr  DEAR  SIR,  —  If  you  say  that  my 
Hiilsemann  letter  is  boastful  and  rough,  I 
shall  own  the  soft  impeachment.  My  ex 
cuse  is  twofold  :  1.  I  thought  it  well  enough 
to  speak  out,  and  tell  the  people  of  Europe 
who  and  what  we  are,  and  awaken  them  to 
a  just  sense  of  the  unparalleled  growth  of 
this  country.  2.  I  wished  to  write  a  paper 
which  should  touch  the  national  pride,  and 
make  a  man  feel  sheepish  and  look  silly  who 
should  speak  of  disunion.  It  is  curious 

1  I  have  seen,  I  believe,  all  the  documents 
in  relation  to  this  matter;  viz.  Mr.  Hunter's 
draft,  Mr.  Everett's  (in  his  handwriting,  with 
Mr.  Webster's  erasures),  the  third  draft,  made 
at  the  department  under  Mr.  Webster's  direc 
tions,  and  the  original  added  paragraphs,  writ 
ten  by  Mr.  Webster  with  his  own  hand.  To 
those  who  are  curious  about  the  question  of 
aulhorsltip,  it  is  needful  only  to  say  that  Mr. 
Webster  adopted  Mr.  Everett's  draft  as  the  basis 
of  the  official  letter,  but  that  the  official  letter 
if  a  much  more  vigorous,  expanded,  and  com 
plete  production  than  Mr.  Everett's  draft.  It  is 
described  in  a  note  written  by  Mr.  Everett  to 
one  of  the  literary  executors,  in  1853,  as  follows : 
"  It  can  be  stated  truly  that  what  Mr.  Webster 
did  himself  to  the  letter  was  very  considerable; 
and  that  he  added  one  half  in  bulk  to  the  origi 
nal  draft;  aiid  that  his  additions  were  of  the 
most  significant  character.  It  was  very  care 
fully  elaborated  in  the  department  by  him,  till 
he  was  authorized  to  speak  of  it  as  he  did  at  the 
Kossuth  dinner.  ..." 

This  refers  to  what  Mr.  Webster  said  in  his 
speech  at  the  Kossuth  banquet,  in  Washington, 
January  7,  1852  :  — 

"May  I  be  so  egotistical  as  to  say  that  I 
have  nothing  new  to  say  on  the  subject  of  Hun 
gary  y  (jentlemen,  in  the  autumn  of  the  year 


THE   HULSEMANN  LETTER. 


679 


enough,  but  it  is  certain,  that  Mr.  Mann's 
private  instructions  were  seen,  somehow 
by  Schwarzenberg. 

"  Yours  always  truly, 

"DANIEL  WEBSTER."1] 


Department  of  State,  Washington, 

December  21,  1850. 

THE  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  United  States,  had  the  honor  to  re 
ceive,  some  time  ago,  the  note  of  Mr. 
Hulsemann,  Charge'  d' Affaires  of  his  Ma 
jesty,  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  of  the  30th 
of  September.  Causes,  not  arising  from 
any  want  of  personal  regard  for  Mr.  Hulse 
mann,  or  of  proper  respect  for  his  govern 
ment,  have  delayed  an  answer  until  the 
present  moment.  Having  submitted  Mr. 
Hulsemann's  letter  to  the  President,  the 
undersigned  is  now  directed  by  him  to  re 
turn  the  following  reply. 

The  objects  of  Mr.  Hulsemann's  note  are, 
first,  to  protest,  by  order  of  his  govern 
ment,  against  the  steps  taken  by  the  late 
President  of  the  United  States  to  ascer 
tain  the  progress  and  probable  result  of 
the  revolutionary  movements  in  Hungary  ; 
and,  secondly,  to  complain  of  some  expres 
sions  in  the  instructions  of  the  late  Secre 
tary  of  State  to  Mr.  A.  Dudley  Mann,  a 
confidential  agent  of  the  United  States,  as 
communicated  by  President  Taylor  to  the 
Senate  on  the  28th  of  March  last. 

The  principal  ground  of  protest  is 
founded  on  the  idea,  or  in  the  allegation, 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
by  the  mission  of  Mr.  Mann  and  his  in 
structions,  has  interfered  in  the  domestic 
affairs  of  Austria  in  a  manner  unjust  or 
disrespectful  toward  that  power.  The 
President's  message  was  a  communication 
made  by  him  to  the  Senate,  transmitting  a 
correspondence  between  the  executive  gov 
ernment  and  a  confidential  agent  of  its 
own.  This  would  seem  to  be  itself  a  do 
mestic  transaction,  a  mere  instance  of  in- 

before  last,  out  of  health,  and  retired  to  my 
paternal  home  among  the  mountains  of  New 
Hampshire,  I  was,  by  reason  of  mv  physical 
condition,  confined  to  my  house;  out  I  was 
among  the  mountains,  whose  native  air  I  was 
bound  to  inspire.  Nothing  saluted  my  senses, 
nothing  saluted  my  mind,  or  my  sentiments,  but 
freedom,  full  and  entire ;  and  there,  gentlemen, 
near  the  graves  of  my  ancestors,  I  wrote  a  let 
ter,  which  most  of  you  have  seen,  addressed  to 
the  Austrian  char  ye  d'affaires.  I  can  sav  noth 
ing  of  the  ability  displayed  in  that  letter,  but, 
as  to  its  principles,  while*  the  sun  and  moon  en 
dure,  I  stand  by  them." 

1  From  Hon.  George  T.  Curtis's  Life  of  Daniel 
Webster,  Vol.  II.  pp.  535-537. 


tercourse  between  the  President  and  the 
Senate,  in  the  manner  which  is  usual  and 
indispensable  in  communications   between 
the  different  branches  of  the  government, 
tt  was  not  addressed  either  to  Austria  or 
Hungary;  nor  was  it  a  public  manifesto, 
to  which  any  foreign  state  was  called  on  to 
reply.     It  was  an  account  of  its  transac 
tions  communicated  by  the  executive  gov 
ernment  to  the  Senate,  at  the  request  of 
that  body ;  made  public,  indeed,  but  made 
public  only  because  such  is  the   common 
and  usual  course  of  proceeding.      It  may 
be  regarded  as  somewhat   strange,  there 
fore,  that   the  Austrian   Cabinet   did   not 
perceive  that,  by  the  instructions  given  to 
Mr.  Hiilsemann,  it   was   itself   interfering 
with  the  domestic  concerns  of   a   foreign 
state,  the  very  thing  which  is  the  ground 
of  its  complaint  against  the  United  States. 
This   department  has,  on  former  occa 
sions,   informed   the   ministers   of   foreign 
powers,   that   a   communication   from   the 
President  to  either  'house  of  Congress  is 
regarded  as  a  domestic  communication,  of 
which,  ordinarily,  no  foreign  state  has  cog 
nizance  ;  and  in  more  recent  instances,  the 
great  inconvenience  of  making  such  com 
munications  the  subject  of  diplomatic  cor 
respondence  and  discussion  has  been  fully 
shown.     If  it  had  been  the  pleasure  of  his 
Majesty,  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  during 
the  struggles  in  Hungary,  to  have  admon 
ished   the   provisional  government  or  the 
people  of  that  country  against  involving 
themselves   in   disaster,   by   following  the 
evil  and  dangerous  example  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  making  efforts  for  the 
establishment  of  independent  governments, 
such   an   admonition   from  that  sovereign 
to  his  Hungarian  subjects  would  not  have 
originated   here   a  diplomatic   correspond 
ence.      The  President  might,  perhaps,  on 
this  ground,  have  declined  to  direct  any 
particular  reply  to  Mr.  Hulsemann's  note'; 
but  out  of  proper  respect  for  the  Austrian 
government,  it  has  been  thought  better  to 
answer  that  note  at  length ;  and  the  more 
especially,  as  the  occasion  is  not  unfavor 
able  for  the  expression  of  the  general  sen 
timents  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States   upon  the   topics   which   that  note 
discusses. 

A  leading  subject  in  Mr.  Hulsemann's 
note  is  that  of  the  correspondence  be 
tween  Mr.  Hiilsemann  and  the  predecessor 
of  the  undersigned,  in  which  Mr.  Clayton, 
by  direction  of  the  President,  informed  Mr. 
Hulsemann  "  that  Mr.  Mann's  mission  had 


680 


APPENDIX. 


no  other  object  in  view  than  to  obtain  re 
liable  information  as  to  the  true  state  of 
affairs  in  Hungary,  by  personal  observa 
tion."  Mr.  Hiilsemann  remarks,  that  "  this 
explanation  can  hardly  be  admitted,  for  it 
says  very  little  as  to  the  cause  of  the 
anxiety  which  was  felt  to  ascertain  the 
chances  of  the  revolutionists."  As  this, 
however,  is  the  only  purpose  which  can, 
with  any  appearance  of  truth,  be  attrib 
uted  to  the  agency ;  as  nothing  whatever 
is  alleged  by  Mr.  Hiilsemann  to  have  been 
either  done  or  said  by  the  agent  inconsist 
ent  with  such  an  object,  the  undersigned 
conceives  that  Mr.  Clayton's  explanation 
ought  to  be  deemed,  not  only  admissible, 
but  quite  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Hiilsemann  states,  in  the  course  of 
his  note,  that  his  instructions  to  address 
his  present  communication  to  Mr.  Clayton 
reached  Washington  about  the  time  of  the 
lamented  death  of  the  late  President,  and 
that  he  delayed  from  a  sense  of  propriety 
the  execution  of  his  task  until  the  new  ad 
ministration  should  be  fully  organized ;  "  a 
delay  which  he  now  rejoices  at,  as  it  has 
given  him  the  opportunity  of  ascertaining 
from  the  new  President  himself,  on  the  oc 
casion  of  the  reception  of  the  diplomatic 
corps,  that  the  fundamental  policy  of  the 
United  States,  so  frequently  proclaimed, 
would  guide  the  relations  of  the  American 
government  with  other  powers."  Mr.  Hiilse 
mann  also  observes,  that  it  is  in  his  power 
to  assure  the  undersigned  "that  the  Im 
perial  government  is  disposed  to  cultivate 
relations  of  friendship  and  good  under 
standing  with  the  United  States." 

The  President  receives  this  assurance  of 
the  disposition  of  the  Imperial  government 
with  great  satisfaction ;  and,  in  considera 
tion  of  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two 
governments  thus  mutually  recognized,  and 
of  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  incidents  by 
which  their  good  understanding  is  supposed 
by  Mr.  Hiilsemann  to  have  been  for  a  mo 
ment  disturbed  or  endangered,  the  Presi 
dent  regrets  that  Mr.  Hiilsemann  did  not 
feel  himself  at  liberty  wholly  to  forbear 
from  the  execution  of  instructions,  which 
were  of  course  transmitted  from  Vienna 
without  any  foresight  of  the  state  of  things 
under  which  they  would  reach  Washing 
ton.  If  Mr.  Hiilsemann  saw,  in  the  ad 
dress  of  the  President  to  the  diplomatic 
corps,  satisfactory  pledges  of  the  senti 
ments  and  the  policy  of  this  government 
in  regard  to  neutral  rights  and  neutral 
duties,  it  might,  perhaps,  have  been  bet 


ter  not  to  bring  on  a  discussion  of  past 
transactions.  But  the  undersigned  readily 
admits  that  this  was  a  question  fit  only 
for  the  consideration  and  decision  of  Mr. 
Hiilsemann*  himself  ;  and  although  the 
President  does  not  see  that  any  good  pur 
pose  can  be  answered  by  reopening  the  in 
quiry  into  the  propriety  of  the  steps  taken 
by  President  Taylor  to  ascertain  the  prob 
able  issue  of  the  late  civil  war  in  Hungary, 
justice  to  his  memory  requires  the  under 
signed  briefly  to  restate  the  history  of  those 
steps,  and  to  show  their  consistency  with 
the  neutral  policy  which  has  invariably 
guided  the  government  of  the  United  States 
in  its  foreign  relations,  as  well  as  with  the 
established  and  well-settled  principles  of 
national  intercourse,  and  the  doctrines  of 
public  law. 

The  undersigned  will  first  observe,  that 
the  President  is  persuaded  his  Majesty,  the 
Emperor  of  Austria,  does  not  think  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  ought 
to  view  with  unconcern  the  extraordinary 
events  which  have  occurred,  not  only  in 
his  dominions,  but  in  many  other  parts  of 
Europe,  since  February,  1848.  The  gov 
ernment  and  people  of  the  United  States, 
like  other  intelligent  governments  and  com 
munities,  take  a  lively  interest  in  the  move 
ments  and  the  events  of  this  remarkable 
age,  in  whatever  part  of  the  world  they 
may  be  exhibited.  But  the  interest  taken 
by  the  United  States  in  those  events  has 
not  proceeded  from  any  disposition  to  de 
part  from  that  neutrality  toward  foreign 
powers,  which  is  among  the  deepest  prin 
ciples  and  the  most  cherished  traditions  of 
the  political  history  of  the  Union.  It  has 
been  the  necessary  effect  of  the  unexam 
pled  character  of  the  events  themselves, 
which  could  not  fail  to  arrest  the  attention 
of  the  contemporary  world,  as  they  will 
doubtless  fill  a  memorable  page  in  history. 

But  the  undersigned  goes  further,  and 
freely  admits  that,  in  proportion  as  these 
extraordinary  events  appeared  to  have  their 
origin  in  those  great  ideas  of  responsible 
and  popular  government,  on  which  the 
American  constitutions  themselves  are 
wholly  founded,  they  could  not  but  com 
mand  the  warm  sympathy  of  the  people 
of  this  country.  Well-known  circum 
stances  in  their  history,  indeed  their  whole 
history,  have  made  them  the  representa 
tives  of  purely  popular  principles  of  gov 
ernment.  In  this  light  they  now  stand  be 
fore  the  world.  They  could  not,  if  they 
would,  conceal  their  character,  their  condi- 


THE   HULSEMANN  LETTER. 


681 


tion,  or  their  destiny.  They  could  not,  if 
they  so  desired,  shut  out  from  the  view  of 
mankind  the  causes  which  have  placed 
them,  in  so  short  a  national  career,  in  the 
station  which  they  now  hold  among  the 
civilized  states  of  the  world.  They  could 
not,  if  they  desired  it,  suppress  either  the 
thoughts  or  the  hopes  which  arise  in  men's 
minds,  in  other  countries,  from  contem 
plating  their  successful  example  of  free 
government.  That  very  intelligent  and  dis 
tinguished  personage,  the  Emperor  Joseph 
the  Second,  was  among  the  first  to  discern 
this  necessary  consequence  of  the  Ameri 
can  Revolution  on  the  sentiments  and 
opinions  of  the  people  of  Europe.  In  a 
letter  to  his  minister  in  the  Netherlands  in 
1787,  he  observes,  that  "  it  is  remarkable 
that  France,  by  the  assistance  which  she 
afforded  to  the  Americans,  gave  birth  to 
reflections  on  freedom."  This  fact,  which 
the  sagacity  of  that  monarch  perceived  at 
so  early  a  day,  is  now  known  and  admitted 
by  intelligent  powers  all  over  the  world. 
True,  indeed,  it  is,  that  the  prevalence  on 
the  other  continent  of  sentiments  favorable 
to  republican  liberty  is  the  result  of  the 
reaction  of  America  upon  Europe ;  and 
the  source  and  centre  of  this  reaction  has 
doubtless  been,  and  now  is,  in  these  United 
States. 

The  position  thus  belonging  to  the  United 
States  is  a  fact  as  inseparable  from  their 
history,  their  constitutional  organization, 
and  their  character,  as  the  opposite  position 
of  the  powers  composing  the  European  al 
liance  is  from  the  history  and  constitutional 
organization  of  the  government  of  those 
powers.  The  sovereigns  who  form  that 
alliance  have  not  unfrequently  felt  it  their 
right  to  interfere  with  the  political  move 
ments  of  foreign  states ;  and  have,  in  their 
manifestoes  and  declarations,  denounced  the 
popular  ideas  of  the  age  in  terms  so  com 
prehensive  as  of  necessity  to  include  the 
United  States,  and  their  forms  of  govern 
ment.  It  is  well  known  that  one  of  the 
leading  principles  announced  by  the  allied 
sovereigns,  after  the  restoration  of  the 
Bourbons,  is,  that  all  popular  or  constitu 
tional  rights  are  holden  no  otherwise  than 
as  grants  and  indulgences  from  crowned 
heads.  "Useful  and  necessary  changes  in 
legislation  and  administration,"  says  the 
Laybach  Circular  of  May,  1821,  "  ought 
only  to  emanate  from  the  free  will  and  in 
telligent  conviction  of  those  whom  God 
has  rendered  responsible  for  power;  all 
that  deviates  from  this  line  necessarily  leads 


to  disorder,  commotions,  and  evils  far  more 
insufferable  than  those  which  they  pretend 
to  remedy."  And  his  late  Austrian  Ma 
jesty,  Francis  the  First,  is  reported  to  have 
declared,  in  an  address  to  the  Hungarian 
Diet,  in  1820,  that  "  the  whole  world  had 
become  foolish,  and,  leaving  their  ancient 
laws,  were  in  search  of  imaginary  constitu 
tions."  These  declarations  amount  to  noth 
ing  less  than  a  denial  of  the  lawfulness  of 
the  origin  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  since  it  is  certain  that  that  govern 
ment  was  established  in  consequence  of  a 
change  which  did  not  proceed  from  thrones, 
or  the  permission  of  crowned  heads.  But 
the  government  of  the  United  States  heard 
these  denunciations  of  its  fundamental  prin 
ciples  without  remonstrance,  or  the  disturb 
ance  of  its  equanimity.  This  was  thirty 
years  ago. 

The  power  of  this  republic,  at  the  pres 
ent  moment,  is  spread  over  a  region  one  of 
the  richest  and  most  fertile  on  the  globe, 
and  of  an  extent  in  comparison  with  which 
the  possessions  of  the  house  of  Hapsburg  are 
but  as  a  patch  on  the  earth's  surface.  Its 
population,  already  twenty-five  millions, 
will  exceed  that  of  the  Austrian  empire 
within  the  period  during  which  it  may  be 
hoped  that  Mr.  Hiilsemann  may  yet  remain 
in  the  honorable  discharge  of  his  duties  to 
his  government.  Its  navigation  and  com 
merce  are  hardly  exceeded  by  the  oldest 
and  most  commercial  nations  ;  its  maritime 
means  and  its  maritime  power  may  be  seen 
by  Austria  herself,  in  all  seas  where  she 
has  ports,  as  well  as  they  may  be  seen, 
also,  in  all  other  quarters  of  the  globe. 
Life,  liberty,  property,  and  all  personal 
rights,  are  amply  secured  to  all  citizens,  and 
protected  by  just  and  stable  laws ;  and 
credit,  public  and  private,  is  as  well  estab 
lished  as  in  any  government  of  Continental 
Europe ;  and  the  country,  in  all  its  interests 
and  concerns,  partakes  most  largely  in  all 
the  improvements  and  progress  which  dis 
tinguish  the  age.  Certainly,  the  United 
States  may  be  pardoned,  even  by  those 
who  profess  adherence  to  the  principles  of 
absolute  government,  if  they  entertain  an 
ardent  affection  for  those  popular  forms  of 
political  organization  which  have  so  rapidly 
advanced  their  own  prosperity  and  happi 
ness,  and  enabled  them,  in  so  short  a  period, 
to  bring  their  country,  and  the  hemisphere 
to  which  it  belongs,  to  the  notice  and  re 
spectful  regard,  not  to  say  the  admiration, 
of  the  civilized  world.  Nevertheless,  the 
United  States  have  abstained,  at  all  times, 


682 


APPENDIX. 


from  acts  of  interference  with  the  political 
changes  of  Europe.  They  cannot,  how 
ever,  fail  to  cherish  always  a  lively  interest 
in  the  fortunes  of  nations  struggling  for 
institutions  like  their  own.  But  this  sym 
pathy,  so  far  from  being  necessarily  a  hos 
tile  feeling  toward  any  of  the  parties  to 
these  great  national  struggles,  is  quite  con 
sistent  with  amicable  relations  with  them 
all.  The  Hungarian  people  are  three  or 
four  times  as  numerous  as  the  inhabitants 
of  these  United  States  were  when  the  Amer 
ican  Revolution  broke  out.  They  possess, 
in  a  distinct  language,  and  in  other  respects, 
important  elements  of  a  separate  nation 
ality,  which  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  in  this 
country  did  not  possess ;  and  if  the  United 
States  wish  success  to  countries  contending 
for  popular  constitutions  and  national  in 
dependence,  it  is  only  because  they  regard 
such  constitutions  and  such  national  inde 
pendence,  not  as  imaginary,  but  as  real 
blessings.  They  claim  no  right,  however, 
to  take  part  in  the  struggles  of  foreign 
powers  in  order  to  promote  these  ends.  It 
is  only  in  defence  of  his  own  government, 
and  its  principles  and  character,  that  the 
undersigned  has  now  expressed  himself  on 
this  subject.  But  when  the  people  of  the 
United  States  behold  the  people  of  foreign 
countries,  without  any  such  interference, 
spontaneously  moving  toward  the  adoption 
of  institutions  like  their  own,  it  surely  can 
not  be  expected  of  them  to  remain  wholly 
indifferent  spectators. 

In  regard  to  the  recent  very  important 
occurrences  in  the  Austrian  empire,  the  un 
dersigned  freely  admits  the  difficulty  which 
exists  in  this  country,  and  is  alluded  to  by 
Mr.  Hiilsemann,  of  obtaining  accurate  in 
formation.  But  this  difficulty  is  by  no 
means  to  be  ascribed  to  what  Mr.  Hiilse 
mann  calls,  with  little  justice,  as  it  seems 
to  the  undersigned,  "  the  mendacious  rumors 
propagated  by  the  American  press."  For 
information  on  this  subject,  and  others  of 
the  same  kind,  the  American  press  is,  of 
necessity,  almost  wholly  dependent  upon 
that  of  Europe ;  and  if  "  mendacious  ru 
mors  "  respecting  Austrian  and  Hungarian 
affairs  have  been  anywhere  propagated, 
that  propagation  of  falsehoods  has  been 
most  prolific  on  the  European  continent, 
and  in  countries  immediately  bordering  on 
the  Austrian  empire.  But,  wherever  these 
errors  may  have  originated,  they  certainly 
justified  the  late  President  in  seeking  true 
information  through  authentic  channels. 

His  attention  was  first  particularly  drawn 


to  the  state  of  things  in  Hungary  by  the 
correspondence  of  Mr.  Stiles,  Charge  d'Af- 
faires  of  the  United  States  at  Vienna.  In 
the  autumn  of  1848,  an  application  was 
made  to  thfc  gentleman,  on  behalf  of  Mr. 
Kossuth,  formerly  Minister  of  Finance  for 
the  Kingdom  of  Hungary  by  Imperial  ap 
pointment,  but,  at  the  time  the  application 
was  made,  chief  of  the  revolutionary  gov 
ernment.  The  object  of  this  application 
was  to  obtain  the  good  offices  of  Mr.  Stiles 
with  the  Imperial  government,  with  a  view 
to  the  suspension  of  hostilities.  This  appli 
cation  became  the  subject  of  a  conference 
between  Prince  Schwarzenberg,  the  Impe 
rial  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Mr. 
Stiles.  The  Prince  commended  the  consid- 
erateness  and  propriety  with  which  Mr. 
Stiles  had  acted ;  and,  so  far  from  disap 
proving  his  interference,  advised  him,  in 
case  he  received  a  further  communication 
from  the  revolutionary  government  in  Hun 
gary,  to  have  an  interview  with  Prince 
Windischgratz,  who  was  charged  by  the 
Emperor  with  the  proceedings  determined 
on  in  relation  to  that  kingdom.  A  week 
after  these  occurrences,  Mr.  Stiles  received, 
through  a  secret  channel,  a  communication 
signed  by  L.  Kossuth,  President  of  the  Com 
mittee  of  Defence,  and  countersigned  by 
Francis  Pulszky,  Secretary  of  State.  On 
the  receipt  of  this  communication,  Mr.  Stiles 
had  an  interview  with  Prince  Windisch 
gratz,  "  who  received  him  with  the  utmost 
kindness,  and  thanked  him  for  his  efforts 
toward  reconciling  the  existing  difficulties." 
Such  were  the  incidents  which  first  drew 
the  attention  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  particularly  to  the  affairs  of 
Hungary,  and  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Stiles, 
though  acting  without  instructions  in  a  mat 
ter  of  much  delicacy,  having  been  viewed 
with  satisfaction  by  the  Imperial  govern 
ment,  was  approved  by  that  of  the  United 
States. 

In  the  course  of  the  year  1848,  and  in 
the  early  part  of  1849,  a  considerable  num 
ber  of  Hungarians  came  to  the  United 
States.  Among  them  were  individuals  rep 
resenting  themselves  to  be  in  the  confidence 
of  the  revolutionary  government,  and  by 
these  persons  the  President  was  strongly 
urged  to  recognize  the  existence  of  that 
government.  In  these  applications,  and  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  viewed  by 
the  President,  there  was  nothing  unusual ; 
still  less  was  there  any  thing  unauthorized 
by  the  law  of  nations.  It  is  the  right  of 
every  independent  state  to  enter  into  friend- 


THE   HULSEMANN  LETTER. 


683 


ly  relations  with  every  other  independent 
state.  Of  course,  questions  of  prudence 
naturally  arise  in  reference  to  new  states, 
brought  by  successful  revolutions  into  the 
family  of  nations ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  re 
quired  of  neutral  powers  that  they  should 
await  the  recognition  of  the  new  govern 
ment  by  the  parent  state.  No  principle  of 
public  law  has  been  more  frequently  acted 
upon,  within  the  last  thirty  years,  by  the 
great  powers  of  the  world,  than  this.  Within 
that  period,  eight  or  ten  new  states  have 
established  independent  governments,  with 
in  the  limits  of  the  colonial  dominions  of 
Spain,  on  this  continent ;  and  in  Europe 
the  same  thing  has  been  done  by  Belgium 
and  Greece.  The  existence  of  all  these 
governments  was  recognized  by  some  of 
the  leading  powers  of  Europe,  as  well  as  by 
the  United  States,  before  it  was  acknowl 
edged  by  the  states  from  which  they  had 
separated  themselves.  If,  therefore,  the 
United  States  had  gone  so  far  as  formally 
to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  Hun 
gary,  although,  as  the  result  has  proved,  it 
would  have  been  a  precipitate  step,  and  one 
from  which  no  benefit  would  have  resulted 
to  either  party  ;  it  would  not,  nevertheless, 
have  been  an  act  against  the  law  of  nations, 
provided  they  took  no  part  in  her  contest 
with  Austria.  But  the  United  States  did 
no  such  thing.  Not  only  did  they  not  yield 
to  Hungary  any  actual  countenance  or  suc 
cor,  not  only  did  they  not  show  their  ships 
of  war  in  the  Adriatic  with  any  menacing 
or  hostile  aspect,  but  they  studiously  ab 
stained  from  every  thing  which  had  not 
been  done  in  other  cases  in  times  past,  and 
contented  themselves  with  instituting  an 
inquiry  into  the  truth  and  reality  of  alleged 
political  occurrences.  Mr.  Hiilsemann  incor 
rectly  states,  unintentionally  certainly,  the 
nature  of  the  mission  of  this  agent,  when 
he  says  that  "  a  United  States  agent  had 
been  despatched  to  Vienna  with  orders  to 
watch  for  a  favorable  moment  to  recognize 
the  Hungarian  republic,  and  to  conclude  a 
treaty  of  commerce  with  the  same."  This, 
indeed,  would  have  been  a  lawful  object, 
but  Mr.  Mann's  errand  was,  in  the  first  in 
stance,  purely  one  of  inquiry.  He  had  no 
power  to  act,  unless  he  had  first  come  to 
the  conviction  that  a  firm  and  stable  Hun 
garian  government  existed.  "  The  princi 
pal  object  the  President  has  in  view,"  ac 
cording  to  his  instructions,  "  is  to  obtain 
minute  and  reliable  information  in  regard 
to  Hungary,  in  connection  with  the  affairs 
of  adjoining  countries,  the  probable  issue 


of  the  present  revolutionary  movements, 
and  the  chances  we  may  have  of  forming 
commercial  arrangements  with  that  power 
favorable  to  the  United  States."  Again, 
in  the  same  paper,  it  is  said:  "The  object 
of  the  President  is  to  obtain  information  in 
regard  to  Hungary,  and  her  resources  and 
prospects,  with  a  view  to  an  early  recogni 
tion  of  her  independence  and  the  formation 
of  commercial  relations  with  her."  It  was 
only  in  the  event  that  the  new  government 
should  appear,  in  the  opinion  of  the  agent, 
to  be  firm  and  stable,  that  the  President 
proposed  to  recommend  its  recognition. 

Mr.  Hiilsemann,  in  qualifying  these  steps 
of  President  Taylor  with  the  epithet  of 
"hostile,"  seems  to  take  for  granted  that 
the  inquiry  could,  in  the  expectation  of  the 
President,  have  but  one  result,  and  that 
favorable  to  Hungary.  If  this  were  so,  it 
would  not  change  the  case.  But  the  Ameri 
can  government  sought  for  nothing  but 
truth  ;  it  desired  to  learn  the  facts  through 
a  reliable  channel.  It  so  happened,  in  the 
chances  and  vicissitudes  of  human  affairs, 
that  the  result  was  adverse  to  the  Hunga 
rian  revolution.  The  American  agent,  as 
was  stated  in  his  instructions  to  be  not  un 
likely,  found  the  condition  of  Hungarian 
affairs  less  prosperous  than  it  had  been,  or 
had  been  believed  to  be.  He  did  not  enter 
Hungary,  nor  hold  any  direct  communica 
tion  with  her  revolutionary  leaders.  He 
reported  against  the  recognition  of  her  in 
dependence,  because  he  found  she  had  been 
unable  to  set  up  a  firm  and  stable  govern 
ment.  He  carefully  forbore,  as  his  instruc 
tions  required,  to  give  publicity  to  his  mis 
sion,  and  the  undersigned  supposes  that  the 
Austrian  government  first  learned  its  ex 
istence  from  the  communications  of  the 
President  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Hiilsemann  will  observe  from  this 
statement,  that  Mr.  Mann's  mission  was 
wholly  unobjectionable,  and  strictly  within 
the  rule  of  the  law  of  nations  and  the  duty 
of  the  United  States  as  a  neutral  power. 
He  will  accordingly  feel  how  little  founda 
tion  there  is  for  his  remark,  that  "  those 
who  did  not  hesitate  to  assume  the  responsi 
bility  of  sending  Mr.  Dudley  Mann  on  such 
an  errand  should,  independent  of  considera 
tions  of  propriety,  have  borne  in  mind  that 
they  were  exposing  their  emissary  to  be 
treated  as  a  spy."  A  spy  is  a  person  sent 
by  one  belligerent  to  gain  secret  informa 
tion  of  the  forces  and  defences  of  the  other, 
to  be  used  for  hostile  purposes.  According 
to  practice,  he  may  use  deception,  under 


684 


APPENDIX. 


the  penalty  of  being  lawfully  hanged  if  de 
tected.  To  give  this  odious  name  and  char 
acter  to  a  confidential  agent  of  a  neutral 
power,  bearing  the  commission  of  his  coun 
try,  and  sent  for  a  purpose  fully  warranted 
by  the  law  of  nations,  is  not  only  to  abuse 
language,  but  also  to  confound  all  just 
ideas,  and  to  announce  the  wildest  and 
most  extravagant  notions,  such  as  certainly 
were  not  to  have  been  expected  in  a  grave 
diplomatic  paper;  and  the  President  directs 
the  undersigned  to  say  to  Mr.  Hiilsemann, 
that  the  American  government  would  re 
gard  such  an  imputation  upon  it  by  the 
Cabinet  of  Austria  as  that  it  employs  spies, 
and  that  in  a  quarrel  none  of  its  own,  as 
distinctly  offensive,  if  it  did  not  presume, 
as  it  is  willing  to  presume,  that  the  word 
used  in  the  original  German  was  not  of 
equivalent  meaning  with  "  spy  "  in  the  Eng 
lish  language,  or  that  in  some  other  way 
the  employment  of  such  an  opprobrious 
term  may  be  explained.  Had  the  Imperial 
government  of  Austria  subjected  Mr.  Mann 
to  the  treatment  of  a  spy,  it  would  have 
placed  itself  without  the  pale  of  civilized 
nations ;  and  the  Cabinet  of  Vienna  may 
be  assured,  that  if  it  had  carried,  or  at 
tempted  to  carry,  any  such  lawless  purpose 
into  effect,  in  the  case  of  an  authorized 
agent  of  this  government,  the  spirit  of  the 
people  of  this  country  would  have  demand 
ed  immediate  hostilities  to  be  waged  by  the 
utmost  exertion  of  the  power  of  the  repub 
lic,  military  and  naval. 

Mr.  Hiilsemann  proceeds  to  remark,  that 
"  this  extremely  painful  incident,  therefore, 
might  have  been  passed  over,  without  any 
written  evidence  being  left  on  our  part  in 
the  archives  of  the  United  States,  had  not 
General  Taylor  thought  proper  to  revive 
the  whole  subject  by  communicating  to  the 
Senate,  in  his  message  of  the  18th  [28th]  of 
last  March,  the  instructions  with  which 
Mr.  Mann  had  been  furnished  on  the  occa 
sion  of  his  mission  to  Vienna.  The  pub 
licity  which  has  been  given  to  that  docu 
ment  has  placed  the  Imperial  government 
under  the  necessity  of  entering  a  formal 
protest,  through  its  official  representative, 
against  the  proceedings  of  the  American 
government,  lest  that  government  should 
construe  our  silence  into  approbation,  or 
toleration  even,  of  the  principles  which  ap 
pear  to  have  guided  its  action  and  the 
means  it  has  adopted."  The  undersigned 
reasserts  to  Mr.  Hiilsemann,  and  to  the 
Cabinet  of  Vienna,  and  in  the  presence  of 
the  world,  that  the  steps  taken  by  Presi 


dent  Taylor,  now  protested  against  by  the 
Austrian  government,  were  warranted  by 
the  law  of  nations  and  agreeable  to  the 
usages  of  civilized  states.  With  respect  to 
the  communication  of  Mr.  Mann's  instruc 
tions  to  the  Senate,  and  the  language  in 
which  they  are  couched,  it  has  already 
been  said,  and  Mr.  Hiilsemann  must  feel 
the  justice  of  the  remark,  that  these  are 
domestic  affairs,  in  reference  to  which  the 
government  of  the  United  States  cannot 
admit  the  slightest  responsibility  to  the 
government  o'f  his  Imperial  Majesty.  No 
state,  deserving  the  appellation  of  inde 
pendent,  can  permit  the  language  in  which 
it  may  instruct  its  own  officers  in  the  dis 
charge  of  their  duties  to  itself  to  be  called 
in  question  under  any  pretext  .by  a  foreign 
power. 

But  even  if  this  were  not  so,  Mr.  Iliil- 
semann  is  in  an  error  in  stating  that  the 
Austrian  government  is  called  an  "iron 
rule "  in  Mr.  Mann's  instructions.  That 
phrase  is  not  found  in  the  paper;  and  in 
respect  to  the  honorary  epithet  bestowed 
in  Mr.  Mann's  instructions  on  the  late  chief 
of  the  revolutionary  government  of  Hun 
gary,  Mr.  Hiilsemann  will  bear  in  mind 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
cannot  justly  be  expected,  in  a  confidential 
communication  to  its  own  agent,  to  with 
hold  from  an  individual  an  epithet  of  dis 
tinction  of  which  a  great  part  of  the  world 
thinks  him  worthy,  merely  on  the  ground 
that  his  own  government  regards  him  as  a 
rebel.  At  an  early  stage  of  the  American 
Revolution,  while  Washington  was  consid 
ered  by  the  English  government  as  a  rebel 
chief,  he  was  regarded  on  the  Continent  of 
Europe  as  an  illustrious  hero.  But  the 
undersigned  will  take  the  liberty  of  bring 
ing  the  Cabinet  of  Vienna  into  the  presence 
of  its  own  predecessors,  and  of  citing  for 
its  consideration  the  conduct  of  the  Impe 
rial  government  itself.  In  the  year  1777  the 
war  of  the  American  Revolution  was  raging 
all  over  these  United  States.  England 
was  prosecuting  that  war  with  a  most  reso 
lute  determination,  and  by  the  exertion  of 
all  her  military  means  to  the  fullest  extent. 
Germany  was  at  that  time  at  peace  with 
England  ;  and  yet  an  agent  of  that  Con 
gress,  which  was  looked  upon  by  England 
in  no  other  light  than  that  of  a  body  in 
open  rebellion,  was  not  only  received  with 
great  respect  by  the  ambassador  of  the 
Empress  Queen  at  Paris,  and  by  the  minis 
ter  of  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany  (who 
afterwards  mounted  the  Imperial  throne), 


THE   HULSEMANN  LETTER. 


685 


but  resided  in  Vienna  for  a  considerable 
time ;  not,  indeed,  officially  acknowledged, 
but  treated  with  courtesy  and  respect ;  and 
the  Emperor  suffered  himself  to  be  per 
suaded  by  that  agent  to  exert  himself  to 
prevent  the  German  powers  from  furnish 
ing  troops  to  England  to  enable  her  to  sup 
press  the  rebellion  in  America.  Neither 
Mr.  Hiilsemann  nor  the  Cabinet  of  Vienna, 
it  is  presumed,  will  undertake  to  say  that 
any  thing  said  or  done  by  this  government 
in  regard  to  the  recent  war  between  Aus 
tria  and  Hungary  is  not  borne  out,  and 
much  more  than  borne  out,  by  this  exam 
ple  of  the  Imperial  Court.  It  is  believed 
that  the  Emperor  Joseph  the  Second  habit 
ually  spoke  in  terms  of  respect  and  admira 
tion  of  the  character  of  Washington,  as  he 
is  known  to  have  done  of  that  of  Franklin ; 
and  he  deemed  it  no  infraction  of  neutrality 
to  inform  himself  of  the  progress  of  the 
revolutionary  struggle  in  America,  or  to 
express  his  deep  sense  of  the  merits  and 
the  talents  of  those  illustrious  men  who 
were  then  leading  their  country  to  inde 
pendence  and  renown.  The  undersigned 
may  add,  that  in  1781  the  courts  of  Russia 
and  Austria  proposed  a  diplomatic  congress 
of  the  belligerent  powers,  to  which  the 
commissioners  of  the  United  States  should 
be  admitted. 

Mr.  Hiilsemann  thinks  that  in  Mr.  Mann's 
instructions  improper  expressions  are  intro 
duced  in  regard  to  Russia;  but  the  under 
signed  has  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Russia 
herself  is  of  that  opinion.  The  only  obser 
vation  made  in  those  instructions  about 
Russia  is,  that  she  "  has  chosen  to  assume 
an  attitude  of  interference,  and  her  im 
mense  preparations  for  invading  and  redu 
cing  the  Hungarians  to  the  rule  of  Austria, 
from  which  they  desire  to  be  released,  gave 
so  serious  a  character  to  the  contest  as  to 
awaken  the  most  painful  solicitude  in  the 
minds  of  Americans."  The  undersigned 
cannot  but  consider  the  Austrian  Cabinet 
as  unnecessarily  susceptible  in  looking 
upon  language  like  this  as  a  "  hostile  dem 
onstration."  If  we  remember  that  it  was 
addressed  by  the  government  to  its  own 
agent,  and  has  received  publicity  only 
through  a  communication  from  one  depart 
ment  of  the  American  government  to  an 
other,  the  language  quoted  must  be  deemed 
moderate  and  inoffensive.  The  comity  of 
nations  would  hardly  forbid  its  being  ad 
dressed  to  the  two  imperial  powers  them 
selves.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  for  the 
undersigned  to  say,  that  the  relations  of 


the  United  States  with  Russia  have  always 
been  of  the  most  friendly  kind,  and  have 
never  been  deemed  by  either  party  to  re 
quire  any  compromise  of  their  peculiar 
views  upon  subjects  of  domestic  or  foreign 
polity,  or  the  true  origin  of  governments. 
At  any  rate,  the  fact  that  Austria,  in  her 
contest  with  Hungary,  had  an  intimate  and 
faithful  ally  in  Russia,  cannot  alter  the 
real  nature  of  the  question  between  Aus 
tria  and  Hungary,  nor  in  any  way  affect 
the  neutral  rights  and  duties  of  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  or  the  justifiable 
sympathies  of  the  American  people.  It  is, 
indeed,  easy  to  conceive,  that  favor  toward 
struggling  Hungary  would  be  not  dimin 
ished,  but  increased,  when  it  was  seen  that 
the  arm  of  Austria  was  strengthened  and 
upheld  by  a  power  whose  assistance  threat 
ened  to  be,  and  which  in  the  end  proved 
to  be,  overwhelmingly  destructive  of  all 
her  hopes. 

Toward  the  conclusion  of  his  note  Mr. 
Hiilsemann  remarks,  that  "  if  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  were  to  think  it 
proper  to  take  an  indirect  part  in  the  polit 
ical  movements  of  Europe,  American  pol 
icy  would  be  exposed  to  acts  of  retaliation, 
and  to  certain  inconveniences  which  would 
not  fail  to  affect  the  commerce  and  indus 
try  of  the  two  hemispheres."  As  to  this 
possible  fortune,  this  hypothetical  retalia 
tion,  the  government  and  people  of  the 
United  States  are  quite  willing  to  take 
their  chances  and  abide  their  destiny. 
Taking  neither  a  direct  nor  an  indirect  part 
in  the  domestic  or  intestine  movements  of 
Europe,  they  have  no  fear  of  events  of  the 
nature  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Hiilsemann.  It 
would  be  idle  now  to  discuss  with  Mr. 
Hiilsemann  those  acts  of  retaliation  which 
he  imagines  may  possibly  take  place  at  some 
indefinite  time  hereafter.  Those  questions 
will  be  discussed  when  they  arise ;  and  Mr. 
Hiilsemann  and  the  Cabinet  at  Vienna  may 
rest  assured,  that,  in  the  mean  time,  while 
performing  with  strict  and  exact  fidelity 
all  their  neutral  duties,  nothing  will  deter 
either  the  government  or  the  people  of  the 
United  States  from  exercising,  at  their  own 
discretion,  the  rights  belonging  to  them  as 
an  independent  nation,  and  of  forming  and 
expressing  their  own  opinions,  freely  and 
at  all  times,  upon  the  great  political  events 
which  may  transpire  among  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  earth.  Their  own  institu 
tions  stand  upon  the  broadest  principles  of 
civil  liberty;  and  believing  those  princi 
ples  and  the  fundamental  laws  in  which 


APPENDIX. 


they  are  embodied  to  be  eminently  favor 
able  to  the  prosperity  of  states,  to  be,  in 
fact,  the  only  principles  of  government 
which  meet  the  demands  of  the  present  en 
lightened  age,  the  President  has  perceived, 
with  great  satisfaction,  that,  in  the  consti 
tution  recently  introduced  into  the  Aus 
trian  empire,  many  of  these  great  principles 
are  recognized  and  applied,  and  he  cher 
ishes  a  sincere  wish  that  they  may  produce 


the  same  happy  effects  throughout  his  Aus 
trian  Majesty's  extensive  dominions  that 
they  have  done  in  the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  has  the  Ironor  to  repeat 
to  Mr.  Hiilsemann  the  assurance  of  his 
high  consideration. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

THE  CHEVALIER  J.  G.  HULSEMANN,  Charge 
d'A/aires  of  Austria,  Washington. 


INDEX. 


INDEX. 


A. 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  on  right  of  search,  661, 
662. 

Abolition  Societies,  Mr.  Webster's  opinion 
of,  571 ;  effect  of,  619. 

"  Accede,"  word  not  found  in  the  Constitu 
tion,  276. 

Accession  and  Secession  defined,  276. 

Act  of  1793,  regulating  coasting  trade,  121; 
of  1800,  concerning  custom-house  bonds, 
383. 

Acts  of  1824,  concerning  surveys  for  ca 
nals,  &c.,  245. 

Acts -of  Legislature  of  N.  H.,  on  Corpora 
tion  of  Dartmouth  College,  1,  3;  in  re 
gard  to  Dartmouth  College,  14,  15. 

Adams  and  Jefferson,  eulogy  delivered  in 
Faneuil  Hall  on,  156 ;  coincidences  in 
the  death  and  lives  of,  157 ;  made  draft 
of  Declaration  of  Independence,  159 ; 
compared  as  scholars,  173. 

Adams,  John,  eulogized,  41,  140, 156  ;  sensa 
tion  caused  by  his  death,  156;  birth  and 
education  of,  159;  admitted  member  of 
Harvard  College,  160;  admitted  to  the 
Bar,  160  ;  defends  British  officers,  and 
soldiers,  160 ;  offered  Chief  Justiceship 
of  Massachusetts,  160;  letter  on  the 
future  of  America,  160 ;  his  articles  on 
"  Feudal  Law,"  161 ;  Delegate  to  Con 
gress,  162  ;  important  resolution  reported 
in  Congress  by,  163 ;  appointed  to  draft 
the  Declaration,  164 ;  power  in  debate, 
166;  remark  of  Jefferson  on,  166;  knowl 
edge  of  Colonial  history,  166 ;  supposed 
speech  in  favor  of  the  Declaration,  168 ; 
Minister  to  France,  170 ;  drafts  Constitu 
tion  of  Massachusetts,  170 ;  concludes 
treaty  with  Holland,  170  ;  his  "Defence 
of  American  Constitutions,"  171 ;  elected 
to  frame  and  revise  Constitution  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  170,  171;  Vice-President  and 


President,  171 ;  his  scholarship,  173 ;  navy 
created  in  administration  of,  175  ;  political 
abuse  of,  251 ;  letter  on  opening  first  Con 
gress  with  prayer,  522. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  at  Bunker  Hill,  139;  his 
nominations  to  office  postponed  by  the 
Senate,  348;  remark  on  Webster,  406; 
opposition  to  his  administration,  434. 

Adams,  Samuel,  delegate  to  Congress,  162  ; 
signs  the  declaration,  170 ;  movement  to 
open  Congress  with  prayer,  522. 

Addition  to  the  Capitol,  speech  at  laying  of 
the  corner-stone  of  the,  639. 

Address,  delivered  at  laying  of  corner-stone 
of  Bunker  Hill  Monument,  123;  on  com 
pletion  of  Bunker  Hill  Monument,  136. 

African  Slave-Trade,  remarks  of  Mr.  Web 
ster  on,  49  ;  Congress  has  power  to  re 
strain,  233. 

African  Squadron,  maintained,  672. 

"  Aiding  and  Abetting  "  defined,  207. 

Airs,  the  martial,  of  England,  371. 

Aldham,  Mr.,  at  dinner  of  New  England 
Society  in  New  York,  503. 

Allegiance,  doctrine  of  perpetual,  656. 

Allied  Sovereigns,  claims  of,  over  national 
independence,  61  ;  effect  of  their  meet 
ing  at  Laybach  on  the  people,  64 ;  their 
conduct  in  regard  to  contest  in  Greece, 
69;  meeting  at  Verona,  1822,  153;  over 
throw  Cortez  government  of  Spain,  153. 

America,  first  railroad  in,  126 ;  her  contri 
butions  to  Europe,  149 ;  success  of  united 
government  in,  499  ;  extract  from  Bishop 
of  St.  Asaph  on  colonies  in,  640 ;  political 
principles  of,  642. 

"  American  "  and  "  foreign  policy,"  applied 
to  system  of  tariff,  78. 

American  Government,  elements  of,  148; 
principles  of,  in  respect  to  suffrage,  539  ; 
the  people  limit  themselves,  540. 

American  Liberty,  principles  of,  536 ;  our 
inheritance  of,  642. 


44 


690 


INDEX. 


American  People,  what  they  owe  to  repub 
lican  principles,  66 ;  establish  popular 
government,  132;  prepared  for  popular 
government,  132. 

American  Political  Principles,  summary 
of,  642. 

American  Revolution,  commemorated  by 
Bunker  Hill  Monument,  125;  survivors 
of,  at  Bunker  Hill,  127 ;  character  of 
state  papers  of,  130;  peculiar  principle 
of,  142. 

Amiens,  Treaty  of,  remarks  of  Mr.  Wind- 
ham  on,  622. 

Ancestors,  how  we  may  commune  with,  26. 

Ancestry,  our  respect  for,  26. 

Annapolis,  meeting  at,  concerning  com 
merce,  115. 

Antislavery  Conventionc,  proceedings  at, 
635. 

Appointing  and  removing  power,  speech  on, 
394. 

Appropriations  by  Congress,  shall  be  spe 
cific,  418. 

Artisans,  law  prohibiting  emigration  of, 
from  England,  91. 

Arts  and  Science,  progress  of,  in  the  United 
States,  648. 

Ashburton,  Lord,  character  of,  484 ;  cited 
491  ;  letter  to  Mr.  Webster  on  impress 
ment,  659. 

Astronomy,  progress  in,  648. 

Attainder,  bill  of,  provision  on  prohibition 
of,  19. 

Attorney-General  v.  Cullum,  in  regard  to 
charity  for  town  of  Burv  St.  Edmunds, 
527. 

Austria,  agent  of  United  States  respect 
fully  received  by,  684. 

Austria  and  Russia,  friendly  to  United 
States  in  1781,  685. 


B. 

Babylon,  astronomers  of,  340. 

Bache,  A.  D.,  quoted,  528. 

Bacon,  Lord,  158. 

Badger,  G.  E.,  of  N.  Carolina,  587 ;  voted 
against  ceding  New  Mexico  and  Cali 
fornia,  632. 

Balance  of  Trade,  doctrine  of,  91. 

Bank  Charter,  benefit  of,  to  stockholders, 
324  ;  first  passed  by  Congress,  327. 

Bank  Credit,  benefit  of,  in  United  States, 
364 ;  evils  arising  from  abuse  of,  364. 

Bank,  National,  Mr.  Ewing's  plan  for  a,  490. 

Bank  Notes,  must  be  convertible  into  specie, 
365. 

Bank  of  England,  resumes  cash  payments, 
81. 


Bank  of  United  States,  object  of,  81 ;  charter 
vetoed,  321 ;  effect  of  the  veto  in  Western 
country,  322  ;  time  for  renewal  of  charter, 
323  ;  benefit  of  a  charter  to  stockholders, 
824;  foreigners  as  stockholders  in,  325- 
327;  advantage  of,  in  case  of  war,  327; 
established,  328;  its  conduct  under  Mr. 
Adams's  administration,  434 ;  message 
of  President  Jackson  in  regard  to,  434  ; 
how  affected  by  events  of  1829,  435; 
bill  for  re-charter  passed  by  Congress, 
436 ;  branch  of,  in  New  Hampshire,  436  ; 
order  for  removal  of  deposits,  436;  act 
incorporating  the,  466. 

Bankruptcy,  a  uniform  system  of,  remarks 
on,  471 ;  State  laws  concerning,  ineffect 
ual,  471. 

Bankrupt  Law,  of  New  York,  considered, 
180;  repeal  of  the,  471. 

Bankrupt  Laws,  to  be  established  by  na 
tional  authority,  179;  absolute  power  of 
Congress  to  establish,  186 ;  prohibition 
on  State  law  in  regard  to,  186. 

Banks,  effect  of  paper  issues  by,  81 ;  safest 
under  private  management,  325  ;  power 
of  Congress  to  establish,  328,  334,  335; 
increase  of,  440;  suspension  of  specie 
payment,  443. 

Barre,  Col.,  extract  from  speech  on  Ameri 
can  Colonists,  237. 

Barrow,  Dr.,  his  idea  of  "  rest,"  xxxix. 

Bell,  Senator  from  Tennessee,  614. 

Benevolent  establishments  of  United  States, 
651. 

Benson,  Judge,  Commissioner  at  Annapolis, 
310. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  speaks  on  Foot's  reso 
lution,  227 ;  resolutions  of,  407;  allusion 
to,  569. 

Berkeley,  Bishop,  extract  from,  639. 

Berrien,  J.  M.,  570;  resolution  concerning 
Mexico,  586 ;  proposition  in  respect  to 
Texas,  611  ;  vote  against  ceding  New 
Mexico  and  California,  032. 

Bill,  to  limit  time  of  service  of  certain 
officers,  394,  395. 

Bill  of  Rights,  meaning  of,  concerning 
chartered  charities,  10. 

Bill  of  Rights  of  N.  H.,  articles  infringed 
in  regard  to  Dartmouth  College,  14 ;  pro 
hibit  retrospective  laws,  14. 

Blacks  from  Northern  States,  how  treated 
at  the  South,  620. 

Blake,  George,  137. 

Boston,  imprisonment  of  Sir  E.  Andros  in, 
39;  its  port  closed,  128;  resolutions  of, 
in  1820,  463;  reception  given  to  Mr. 
Webster  in  1842,  481. 

Bowdoin,  James,  delegate  to  Congress,  162. 


INDEX. 


691 


Branch,  Mr.,  resolution  of,  373. 

Brewster,  Elder,  27,  31,  52. 

British  Parliament,  power  claimed  by,  over 
charters,  5. 

Brooks,  Gov.  John,  127. 

Brougham,  Mr.,  his  approval  of  the  Monroe 
declaration,  155. 

Buena  Vista,  General  Taylor  at,  559. 

Buffalo,  building  of  a  pier  at,  424;  recep 
tion  of  Mr.  Webster  at,  and  speech,  May 
22,  1851,  626 ;  citizens  of,  exhorted  to 
preserve  the  Union,  627. 

Buller,  Justice,  extract  on  government  of 
corporations,  21. 

Bunker  Hill  Battle,  address  to  survivors  of, 
127  ;  important  effects  of,  129 ;  changes 
of  the  fifty  years  following  the,  131 ; 
survivors  of,  present  at  completion  of 
monument,  138;  described,  141;  estab 
lished  Independence,  142. 

Bunker  Hill  Monument,  address  at  laying 
of  corner-stone,  123 ;  William  Tudor's 
idea  of  erecting  the,  123  ;  laying  of  corner 
stone  described,  123 ;  completion  of.  136 ; 
veterans  present  at  completion  of,  138 ; 
"  stands  on  Union,"  140  ;  description  of, 
151. 

Burke,  Edmund,  compliment  to  Charles 
Fox,  xxxviii ;  speeches  of,  criticised,  lii ; 
bill  for  economical  reform,  469. 

c. 

Cabot,  George,  notice  of,  497. 

Calhoun,  J.  C.,  President  of  Senate  and 
Vice-President  of  United  States,  243; 
resolutions  on  State  sovereignty,  273; 
speaks  on  Wilkins  tariff  bill,  273; 
course  in  regard  to  tariff  of  1816,  305; 
resolutions  of,  relating  to  slavery,  445; 
supports  administration  of  Van  Buren, 
451  ;  remarks  of  Mr.  Webster  en  the 
political  course  of,  453 ;  letter  on  Sub- 
Treasury  bill,  453  ;  change  in  views  upon 
Sub-Treasury  bill,  454;  advocates  the 
State-rights  party,  455,  464,  467  ;  his  ob 
ject  to  unite  the  entire  South,  457  ;  attack 
on  Mr.  Webster,  458;  Mr.  Webster's 
reply  to,  458 ;  opposes  Mr.  Dallas's  bill 
for  a  bank,  460;  bill  of,  for  internal  im 
provements,  466 ;  extract  from,  on  the 
power  of  Congress,  467  ;  took  lead  in  an 
nexing  Texas,  60D  ;  remarks  upon  admis 
sion  of  Texas,  611  ;  dying  testimony  to 
Mr.  Webster's  conscientiousness,  xliii. 

California,  proposed  annexation  of,  563 ; 
article  of  cession  to  United  States,  587  ; 
discovery  of  gold  in,  601 ;  Mexican  pro 
vincial  government  overthrown  by,  601  ; 


establishment  of  local  government  in, 
602 ;  slavery  excluded  from,  by  law  of 
nature,  615. 

Canada,  cession  to  England,  effect  on  the 
colonies,  42. 

Canals,  act  of  1824  concerning,  245. 

Canning,  Mr.,  opinion  concerning  Spain 
and  her  colonies,  154  ;  approval  of  the 
Monroe  declaration,  155. 

Capitol,  speech  at  laying  of  corner-stone 
of  the  addition  to  the,  639 ;  copy  of 
paper  under  corner-stone  of,  644 ;  foun 
dation  laid  by  Washington,  644  ;  plan  for 
extension  of  the,  644. 

Carroll,  Charles,  signer  of  the  Declaration, 
176. 

Cass,  Lewis,  Mexican  speech  of,  554;  as  a 
Whig  candidate,  575  ;  as  a  candidate  for 
President,  584;  personal  character  of, 
584 ;  in  favor  of  the  Compromise  Line, 
588 ;  requests  his  recall  from  France,  667  ; 
his  construction  of  the  treaty  of  Wash 
ington  referred  to,  669,  671;  answer  of 
Mr.  Webster  to,  concerning  the  African 
squadron,  672. 

Catharine  the  Second  of  Russia,  policy  in 
respect  to  Greece,  70. 

Cession,  articles  of,  concerning  New  Mexico 
and  California,  587. 

Channing,  W.  E.,  letter  of,  on  slavery,  624. 

Charities,  charters  granted  to  founders 
of,  7  ;  colleges  included  under,  7,  510 ; 
founder  of  incorporated,  considered  vis 
itor,  7 ;  government  may  incorporate,  7 ; 
legal  signification  of,  7 ;  opinion  of  Lord 
Holt  respecting  the  power  of  visitors 
over,  7  ;  right  of  visitation  in,  incorpo 
rated,  7;  case  of  town  of  Bury  St.  Ed 
munds,  527 ;  schools  founded  by,  must 
include  religious  instruction,  528. 

Charity,  legal  definition  of,  510. 

Charles  the  Second,  39. 

Charters,  of  Dartmouth  College  (1769),  1; 
legislative  power  over,  defined,  5 ;  power 
claimed  by  British  Parliament  over,  5; 
Lord  Mansfield  on  rights  of,  5;  legisla 
tive  power  over,  limited,  6 ;  granted  to 
founders  of  charities,  7 ;  opinion  of  Lord 
Commissioner  Eyre  on  charities  estab 
lished  by,  9  ;  how  they  affect  property  of 
corporations,  12 ;  of  the  nature  of  con 
tracts,  20,  21 ;  how  may  be  altered  or 
varied,  21 ;  may  be  accepted  at  will,  21 ; 
no  difference  between  grants  of  corporate 
franchise  and  tangible  property,  21 ;  of 
Dartmouth  College  (1769)  is  a  contract, 
22 ;  obtained  by  founders  of  English 
liberty,  63;  New  England  colonists  re 
quired  them,  148. 


692 


INDEX. 


J 


Chateaubriand,  M.  de,  quoted  respecting 
the  Holy  Alliance,  64. 

Chatham,  Lord,  his  colonial  policy,  42; 
opinion  of  the  first  Congress,  162. 

Chaucer,  his  use  of  word  "  green,"  xxxix. 

Chicago  Road,  President's  opinion  in  re 
spect  to,  353. 

China,  trade  of  United  States  with,  95. 

Choate,  Rufus,  496. 

Christian  charity  defined,  510 ;  spirit  of, 
519. 

Christianity,  blended  influence  of  civiliza 
tion  and,  65 ;  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
a  part  of,  518  ;  essentials  of,  part  of  the 
common  law,  527,  530. 

Christian  Ministry,  and  the  Religious  In 
struction  of  the  Young,  speech  in  Su 
preme  Court,  505. 

Christian  Ministry,  opprobrium  cast  on  the, 
by  the  Girard  will,  508;  establishment 
of,  by  Christ,  515  ;  work  of  the,  in  United 
States,  509,  516. 

Christians,  religious  belief  of,  521. 

Christ's  command,  "  Suffer  little  children," 
&c.,  referred  to,  517. 

Church,  grants  to,  cannot  be  rescinded,  13. 

Civil  Law,  maxim  of,  in  regard  to  slavery, 
573. 

Clay,  Henry,  speech  on  tariff  of  1824  criti 
cised  by  Mr.  Webster,  78 ;  author  of 
American  system  of  tariff,  78  ;  resolution 
of,  relating  to  slavery  in  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  445;  resolutions  in  respect  to 
slavery,  600. 

Clayton,  J.  M.,  his  explanation  of  Mr. 
Mann's  mission,  680. 

Clergy,  eulogium  on,  509. 

Coast  Survey  of  United  States,  648. 

College  Livings,  rights  and  character  of,  16; 
attack  of  James  the  Second  on  Magdalen 
College,  17. 

Colleges,  are  eleemosynary  corporations,  6, 
8,  22 ;  charters  granted  to,  7  ;  founda 
tion  of,  considered  by  Lord  Mansfield,  9; 
charters  should  be  kept  inviolate,  23 ; 
party  or  political  influence  dangerous  to, 
23. 

Colonies,  establishment  of  Greek,  31 ;  of 
New  England,  34,  35;  of  Roman,  33;  of 
West  India,  34,  35;  Spanisli  in  South 
America,  134,  144;  New  England  and 
Virginia,  144 ;  English  and  Spanish  com 
pared,  145;  original  ground  of  dispute 
between  England  and  the,  164 ;  American, 
declared  free  and  independent,  641. 

Colonists,  English,  in  America,  secret  of 
their  success,  147  ;  brought  their  charters, 
148 ;  in  Virginia,  failed  tor  want  of  charter, 
148 ;  allegiance  to  the  king,  165. 


Columbus,  Christopher,  portrayed,  124, 144. 

Columbus,  0.,  convention  at,  in  regard  to 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  518. 

Commerce,  condition  of,  in  1824,  83 ; 
its  national  character,  92,  498 ;  how 
affected  by  laws  of  Confederation,  114 ; 
power  of  Congress  to  regulate,  114,  120; 
resolutions  of  New  Jersey  i?i  regard  to, 
115;  Mr.  Witherspoon's  motion  in  Con 
gress  concerning,  115;  of  Virginia  in  re 
gard  to,  115;  necessity  of  vesting  Con 
gress  with  power  to  control,  115;  law  of 
Congress  paramount,  120;  guarded  by 
the  general  government,  497. 

Compact  and  government  as  distinguished 
from  each  other,  284. 

Compromise  Act,  principle  of,  489. 

Compromise  Line,  in  respect  to  slavery, 
588. 

Concurrent  Legislation,  defined  and  argued, 
116;  effect  on  monopolies,  119. 

Confederation,  its  effect  on  commerce,  114; 
of  1781  a  league,  276  ;  state  of  the  country 
under  the,  281. 

Confessions,  how  to  be  regarded,  220. 

Congress  of  Delegates,  at  Philadelphia, 
1774,  162  ;  resolutions  on  the  Declaration, 
165;  sat  with  closed  doors,  166. 

Congress  of  Greece,  of  1821,  72. 

Congress  of  United  States,  power  to  regu 
late  commerce,  114,  120;  should  have 
power  to  regulate  commerce,  115;  and 
the  States,  argument  on  concurrent  power 
of,  115;  exclusive  right  over  monopolies, 
116  ;  possesses  exclusive  admiralty  juris 
diction,  118;  law  of,  paramount,  120; 
laws  of,  in  opposition  to  State  law,  122  ; 
power  concerning  rights  of  authors  and 
inventors,  122;  its  coinage  powers,  185; 
to  establish  uniform  bankrupt  laws,  186  ; 
power  over  slave  trade,  233 ;  no  power 
over  slavery,  233,  429,  636  ;  power  to 
make  laws,  293,  331  ;  exclusive  power  to 
lay  duties,  300 ;  duty  of,  in  case  of  a  Presi 
dential  veto,  320;  passes  first  bank 
charter,  1791, 327  ;  to  establish  banks,  328, 
334,  335 ;  power  of,  continuous,  336 ; 
duties  of  both  houses,  375;  power  to  bor 
row  money,  375 ;  in  regard  to  public 
moneys,  382 ;  no  precise  time  for  ex 
piration  of  session,  414;  power  over 
ceded  territory,  445;  no  control  over 
slavery,  571. 

Congress  of  Verona,  in  regard  to  Greek 
revolution,  70,  153. 

Connecticut,  law  of,  concerning  steam  nav 
igation,  112. 

Constitution  of  United  States,  provision  con 
cerning  ex  post  facto  laws,  19  ;  its  origin  to 


INDEX. 


693 


regulate  commerce,  114, 115;  its  authority 
to  establish  bankrupt  laws,  179 ;  law  of,  in 
regard  to  contracts,  180  ;  object  of  the, 
1.85  ;  provides  a  medium  for  payment  of 
debts,  and  a  uniform  mode  of  discharging 
them,  186 ;  prohibitions  of,  concerning 
contracts  and  payment  of  debts,  187  ; 
provisions  for  settling  questions  of  Con 
stitutional  law,  265  ;  to  be  interpreted  by 
the  judicial  power,  265,  282;  as  a  com 
pact,  270  ;  not  a  compact  between  Sover 
eign  States,  argued,  273;  object  of,  281  ; 
not  a  league,  282  ;  what  it  says  of  itself, 
283 ;  its  relations  to  individuals,  286 ; 
Madison's  opinion  of,  313 ;  provision  of, 
in  case  of  a  Presidential  veto,  320 ; 
President  Jackson's  view  of,  354 ;  our 
duty  to  the,  358  ;  protects  labor,  361 ; 
division  of  powers  conferred  by,  379;  on 
power  of  removal  from  office,  398  ;  divides 
powers  of  government,  398 ;  recognized 
slavery,  429,  570;  does  not  speak  of 
Sovereign  States,  or  Federal  Govern 
ment,  538  ;  protects  existing  government 
of  a  State,  542;  and  the  Union,  speech 
on,  March  7,  1850,  600;  formation  of  the, 
628 ;  provision  of,  concerning  fugitives, 
629  ;  officers  of  the  law  bound  to  support 
the,  630 ;  how  it  affected  the  institution 
of  slavery,  Ix. 

Constructive  presence  defined,  210. 

Contracts,  cases  cited  concerning  obliga 
tion  of,  19;  defined,  include  grants,  19; 
provision  concerning  obligation  of,  19; 
law  of  the  Constitution  in  regard  to,  180; 
obligation  of,  defined,  180,  181 ;  obliga 
tion  of,  rests  on  universal  law,  181 ;  the 
law  not  a  part  of,  argued,  182-184;  the 
constitutional  provision  in  regard  to,  185  ; 
prohibition  on  state  law  concerning,  187. 

Convention  of  1787,  remarks  on,  287. 

Copper,  duties  received  from,  108. 

Corporate  Franchises,  power  of  Legislature 
over,  limited,  6. 

Corporations,  acts  of  Legislature,  on  Dart 
mouth  College  (1769),  2, 3 ;  royal  preroga 
tive  to  create,  5  ;  power  of  King  over, 
limited  by  Legislature,  5 ;  power  of  Legis 
lature  to  create,  5  ;  opinion  of  Lord  Mans 
field  on  rights  of,  5  ;  divers  sorts  of,  6  ; 
eleemosynary,  nature  of,  defined,  6,  9  ; 
power  of,  over  property  possessed  by 
them,  t> ;  charter  rights  of  visitors  of,  7 ; 
power  of  visitation  over  transferable,  7 ; 
argument  of  Stilliugfleet,  8  ;  rights  of 
trustees  object  of  legal  protection,  11  ; 
fr  nchises  granted  to,  11  ;  concerning 
pecuniary  benefit  fr.om,  11;  concerning 
private  property,  12;  concerning  grants 


of  land  to,  13  ;  right  of  trustees  to  elect 
officers,  16 ;  legislature,  cannot  repeal 
statutes  creating  private,  20;  extract  from 
Justice  Bulleron  government  of,  21 ;  how 
charters  of,  may  be  altered  or  varied,  21 ; 
possible  dangers  of  independent  govern 
ment,  22. 

Cotton,  attempt  to  naturalize  growth  of,  in 
France,  99 ;  how  affected  by  tariff  of 
1824,  102 ;  proposed  reduction  of  duty 
on,  243 ;  culture  of,  protected,  304  ;  how 
its  cultivation  affects  slavery  and  the 
South,  608. 

Cotton  Manufactures,  importance  of,  101 ; 
of  England  and  United  States,  103. 

Crawford,  Mr.,  opposing  candidate  to  Mr. 
Adams,  581. 

Credit  System,  and  the  Labor  of  the  United 
States,  remarks  on,  449. 

Credit  System,  benefit  of,  in  United  States, 
304 ;  evils  arising  from  abuse  of,  364. 

Criminal  Law,  its  object,  198. 

Cumberland  Hoad  Bill,  approved,  415. 

Currency,  effect  of  paper  issues  to  depre 
ciate,  81 ;  paper,  of  England,  effect  on 
prices,  81 ;  the  laboring  man's  interest 
in,  360  ;  experiment  of  exclusive  specie, 
362;  President's  interference  with,  433; 
soundness  of,  440 ;  derangement  of,  effect 
of,  442  ;  its  restoration  an  object  of  revolu 
tion  of  1840,  490. 

Gushing,  Thomas,  delegate  to  Congress, 
162. 

Custom-house  Bonds,  act  of  1800  in  regard 
to,  383. 


D. 


Dallas,  Geo  M.,  proposition  of,  for  a  bank, 
460. 

Dane,  Nathan,  drafted  Ordinance  of  1787, 
231. 

Danemora,  iron  mines  of,  105. 

Dartmouth  College,  argument  in  case  of, 
1  ;  acts  of  Legislature  affecting,  1,  3,  14, 
15,  16,  18;  corporation  of,  (1709,)  2; 
charter  of,  (1769,)  is  a  contract,  22;  ob 
servation  of  Mr.  Webster  on  opinion  of 
court  of  N.  H.  concerning,  22  ;  incident 
connected  with  Mr.  Webster's  argument 
in  case  of,  xxi. 

Davis,  Judge,  532. 

Debt,  abolition  of  imprisonment  for,  474. 

Debtor  and  Creditor,  law  of,  472,  473. 

Debts,  the  Constitution  provides  for  the 
payment  and  discharge  of,  186. 

Declaration  of  Independence,  163;  com 
mittee  appointed  to  draft  the,  164;  its 


694 


INDEX. 


object  and  foundation,  165 ;  speeches  of 
Webster  for,  and  dissenting,  ascribed  to 
Adams  and  another,  107,  168 ;  anniver 
sary  of,  641. 

Democracy,  Northern,  policy  of,  611. 

Deposits,  removal  of,  by  the  President,  369. 
iSee  Public  Moneys. 

Dexter,  Samuel,  character  of,  261. 

Disbursing  Officers,  tenure  of  office,  396. 

Discourse  delivered  at  Plymouth,  on  "  First 
Settlement  of  New  England,"  25. 

Dissolution  of  the  Union,  evils  of,  346. 

District  of  Columbia,  remarks  of  Mr.  Web 
ster  on  Slavery  in,  445;  resolutions  on 
Slavery  in,  445;  power  of  Congress  in, 
446. 

Divine  Right,  a  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Alli 
ance,  63. 

Dix,  J.  A.,  his  vote  for  admission  of  Texas, 
611. 

Domestic  Industry,  not  confined  to  manu 
factures,  98. 

Dorr,  Thomas  W.,  at  the  head  of  revolu 
tionary  government  of  Rhode  Island, 
£35;  tried  for  treason,  536. 

Dough  Faces,  voted  for  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  583. 

Douglass,  Stephen  H.,  amendment  concern 
ing  Missouri,  569. 

Drum-Beat  of  England,  371. 

Duane,  W.  J.,  removal  of,  from  office,  368. 

Duche,  Rev.  Mr.,  opened  first  Congress 
with  prayer,  522. 

Durfee,  Chief  Justice,  charge  of,  in  Dorr 
case  of  Rhode  Island,  545. 

Duties  on  Imports,  extract  from  speech  on, 
(1846,)  110. 

E. 

Education,  provision  for  general  diffusion 
of,  in  New  England,  47,  48 ;  sentiment  of 
John  Adams  on,  174. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  his  use  of  the  word 
"  sweetness,"  xxxix. 

Election,  of  officers  of  colleges,  16. 

Elections,  rights  of,  12;  American  system 
of,  540. 

Electricity,  progress  in,  648. 

Eleemosynary  corporations,  nature  of,  de 
fined,  6,  9;  colleges  are  included  under, 
22. 

Ellenborough,  Lord,  on  commercial  re 
strictions,  87. 

Ellsworth,  Oliver,  extract  from,  on  the  Con 
stitution,  288,  295. 

Eloquence,  defined  by  Webster,  167. 

Embargo,  Mr.  Hillhouse's  opinion  of,  200 ; 
opposed  by  Massachusetts,  260. 


Emigration,  different  motives  for,  31,  557 ; 
Grecian,  32 ;  Roman,  33 ;  purposes  and 
prospects  of  Pilgrim  Fathers,  35;  toward 
the  West,  41 ;  to  California,  began,  601 ; 
how  encoifraged  by  England,  6'56. 

England,  effect  of  taxation  on  land-holders 
in,  44  ;  how  land  was  holden,  in  time  of 
Henry  the  Seventh,  44;  paper  system  of, 
effect  on  prices,  81 ;  protective  system  of, 
84 ;  policy  of,  in  respect  to  paper  currency, 
86 ;  manufacture  of  silk  in,  87  ;  removed 
certain  restrictions  on  trade,  89;  pro 
visions  concerning  her  shipping  interest, 
109;  course  of,  in  regard  to  Spanish 
colonies,  154 ;  the  original  ground  of  dis 
pute  between  the  Colonies  arid,  164  ;  rela 
tion  of  South  Carolina  to,  in  1775,259; 
maritime  power  of,  in  war  of  1812,  461; 
imprisonment  for  debt  abolished  in,  474 ; 
progress  of  its  power,  501 ;  law  of,  in 
regard  to  charitable  institutions,  527  ; 
representative  system  of,  538,  642;  right 
claimed  by,  in  respect  to  impressment, 
655  ;  encourages  emigration,  656. 

English  Colonists,  in  America,  secret  of 
their  success,  147. 

English  Composition,  school-boy's  attempt 
at,  xi ;  falseness  of  style,  xii. 

English  Language,  correct  use  in  the  United 
States,  148. 

English  Revolution  of  1088,  63;  participa 
tion  of  Massachusetts  in,  39. 

Europe,  effect  in  United  States  of  pacifi 
cation  of,  242  ;  condition  of,  at  the  birth 
of  Washington,  341. 

Everett,  Edward,  Minister  to  England,  487 ; 
draft  for  the  Iliilsemann  letter,  678. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  resolution  in  regard  to 
payments  for  public  lands,  438;  plan  for 
a  national  bank,  490. 

Exchange,  the  rate  of,  96;  English  stand 
ard  of,  97. 

Exchequer,  plan  of,  Mr.  Webster's  appro 
bation  of,  491,  492 ;  sent  to  Congress  in 
1842,  491. 

Exclusion  of  Slavery  from  the  Territories, 
speech  on,  Aug.  12,  1848,  569. 

Executive  of  United  States,  power  over  the 
press,  351,  352;  refuses  to  execute  law 
of  Congress,  353  ;  patronage,  dangers  of, 
394,395;  power  of,  defined,  398  ;  exten 
sion  of  its  power,  430,  431 ;  change  in  the 
fiscal  system  effected  by,  436. 

Executive  Patronage,  and  removals  from 
office,  speech  on,  347. 

Executive  Usurpation,  speech  on,  353. 

Exeter  College,  judgment  of  Lord  Holt,  in 
case  of,  7  ;  argument  of  Stillingfleet,  8. 

Exports  from  the  United  States,  79,  93. 


INDEX. 


695 


Ex  post  facto  laws,  prohibited  by  Consti 
tution  of  U.  S.,  19. 

Eyre,  Lord  Commissioner,  opinion  of,  on 
chartered  charities,  9. 


F. 


Faneuil  Hall,  draped  in  mourning  for  the 
first  time,  156  ;  reception  of  Mr.  Webster 
at,  Sept.  30,  1842,  481. 

Federalism,  history  of,  252. 

Federalist,  extract  from,  on  the  Constitution, 
289. 

Festival  of  Sons  of  New  Hampshire,  598. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  laid  corner-stone  of  ex 
tension  to  the  Capitol,  644;  addressed, 
653. 

Fitch,  John,  grant  to,  concerning  steam 
navigation,  112. 

Fitzsimmons,  Mr.,  suggests  protective  du 
ties,  303. 

Flagg,  George,  his  painting  of  the  Landing 
of  the  Pilgrims,  52. 

Fletcher  v.  Peck,  case  of  contract,  19. 

Florida,  acquisition  of,  429 ;  admitted  into 
the  Union,  559 ;  cession  of,  608. 

Foot's  Resolution,  in  Congress,  concerning 
Public  Lands,  227  ;  Mr.  Webster's  second 
speech  on,  227 ;  Mr.  Webster's  last  re 
marks  on,  269.  • 

Foreigners,  as  stockholders  in  U.  S.  Bank, 
325-327. 

Foreign  Interference,  President  Monroe  on, 
153. 

Foreign  Trade,  to  be  encouraged,  94,  98. 

Forsyth,  John,  moves  to  reduce  duty  on 
cotton,  243. 

Fortification  Bill,  speech  on  loss  of  the, 
407;  history  of,  410-413;  extract  from 
President's  Message  on,  416. 

Foster,  John,  extract  from  his  "  Essay  on 
Evils  of  Popular  Ignorance,"  523. 

Fox,  Charles,  remark  on  Lord  Chancellor 
Thurlow,  xxxvii ;  and  Burke,  speeches 
of,  compared,  Ivi. 

France,  subdivision  of  landed  property  in, 
44;  prophecy  concerning  government  of, 
44,  53 ;  allies  enter  into,  effect  on  trade, 
80;  invasion  of  Spain,  153;  alliance  of 
U.  S.  with,  declared  void,  278 ;  letters  of 
marque,  asked  by  President  Jackson, 
420. 

Franchise,  and  liberty,  synonymous  terms, 
11 ;  individual,  protected  by  law,  15. 

Franchises,  corporate,  power  of  Legislature 
over,  limited,  6;  granted  to  trustees  of 
corporations,  11. 

Francis  the  First,  quoted,  681. 


Franklin,  Benjamin,  39;  appointed  to  draft 
the  Declaration,  164. 

Franklin,  State  of,  constitution  of,  and  pro 
vision  to  supply  a  currency,  470. 

Free  Blacks,  from  North,  how  treated  at 
the  South,  620. 

Free  Press,  attributes  of,  350 ;  the  bestow 
ing  of  office  on  conductors  of  the,  351. 

Free  Schools,  of  New  England,  47. 

Free  Soil  men,  character  of,  631. 

Free  Soil  Party,  platform  of,  580;  nominate 
Martin  Van  Buren,  581. 

Free  Trade,  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  on,  109, 
note. 

Freights,  rates  of,  83,  108;  of  iron  from 
Sweden,  106. 

French  Indemnity  Loan,  of  1818,  81. 

Frothingham,  Richard,  extract  from,  on  lay 
ing  corner-stone  of  Bunker  Hill  Monu 
ment,  123;  account  of  completion  of 
Bunker  Hill  Monument,  135. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  of  1793,  and  1850,  634 ; 
opposition  to,  635. 

Fugitive  Slaves,  complaint  of  the  South  and 
duty  of  the  North  concerning,  617  ;  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to, 
629. 

Fulton,  Robert,  his  exclusive  right  to  navi 
gation,  112. 

Fulton  and  Livingston,  grant  of  steam  navi 
gation  to,  by  New  York,  112. 


G. 


Gage,  Governor,  convenes  General  Court 
at  Salem,  162 ;  rejects  John  Adams  as 
Councillor,  162. 

Gaines,  Major,  description  of  New  Mexico, 
565. 

Gallagher,  Wm.  D.,  extract  from,  on 
growth  of  Western  trade,  646. 

General  Court,  convened  at  Salem,  162 ;  at 
Salem  dissolved,  and  power  of  England 
terminated,  162. 

Georgia,  cession  of  her  Western  territory, 
608. 

German  Literature,  play  ridiculing  the,  454. 

Gerry,  Samuel,  170. 

Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  case  of,  111;  argument 
of  Mr.  Webster  in,  111. 

Girard  College,  provisions  of  Girard's  will 
in  regard  to,  506  ;  restriction  concerning 
religious  instruction  in,  507 ;  no  observ 
ance  of  the  Sabbath  there,  518. 

Girard,  Stephen,  will  of,  contested,  505; 
his  scheme  derogatory  to  Christianity, 
515,  516. 

Glass,  duty  on,  advisable,  102. 


696 


INDEX. 


Gold,  and  silver  as  legal  tender,  95 ;  dis 
covered  in  California,  601. 

Goodhue,  Mr.,  497. 

Goodridge  Robbery  Case,  Mr.  Webster's 
management  of,  xv. 

Government,  nature  and  constitution  of, 
43;  republican  form  of,  laws  which  regu 
late,  43  ;  of  France,  how  effected  by  sub 
division  of  land,  44,  53 ;  subdivision  of 
lands  necessary  to  free  form  of,  44  ;  the 
true  principle  of  a  free,  45 ;  to  be  founded 
on  property,  45 ;  absolute  or  regulated, 
the  question  of  the  age,  60 ;  influence  of 
knowledge  over,  131-133;  difficulty  of 
establishing  popular,  132;  influence  of 
public  opinion  on,  133 ;  popular,  practi 
cable,  134 ;  popular,  overthrown  in  Spain, 
153;  powers  of,  concerning  local  im 
provement,  238  ;  power  of,  over  internal 
improvements,  243 ;  doctrine  of  South 
Carolina  on  State  rights,  255 ;  popular, 
rests  on  two  principles,  297 ;  the  success 
of  a  united,  499. 

Government,  American,  character  of,  estab 
lished  by  the  Pilgrims,  35;  origin  and 
character  of,  43;  system  of  representa 
tion  in,  46;  founded  on  morality  and 
religious  sentiment,  49;  origin  and  source 
of  power,  257;  its  establishment,  285; 
majority  must  govern,  295;  danger  of 
political  proscription  to  the,  349 ;  two 
principles  upon  which  it  stands,  319. 

Grants,  legislature  no  power  to  rescind, 
when  given  for  educational  or  religious 
purposes,  13 ;  protection  of,  19 ;  included 
under  contracts,  19. 

Great  Britain,  negotiation  of  treaty  with. 
481. 

Greece,  saved  by  battle  of  Marathon,  28  ; 
emigration  from,  32  ;  speech  on  revolu 
tion  in,  57  ;  appeal  to  United  States  con 
cerning  revolution  in,  57 ;  extract  from 
President  Monroe,  on  revolution  in,  58  ; 
we  are  her  debtors,  58  ;  improved  condi 
tion  of,  68  ;  conduct  of  Allied  Sovereigns 
in  regard  to  contest  in,  69 ;  Congress  at 
Verona,  1822,  concerning  independence 
of,  70;  Congress  of  1821,72;  revolution 
of  1821  in,  72;  society  of  Vienna  to  en 
courage  literature  in,  72  ;  propriety  of  ap 
pointing  an  agent  to,  75;  liberty  of,  641 ; 
want  of  union  among  her  states,  642. 

Greeks,  Baron  Strogonoff  on  the  massacre 
of  the,  71;  excited  to  rebellion  by  Rus 
sia,  69  ;  our  sympathy  for  cause  of,  67 ; 
the  oppression  of,  by  Turkey,  68  ;  what 
they  have  accomplished,  74. 

Griswold,  George,  toast  to  Daniel  Web 
ster,  496. 


H. 


Hale,  Representative  to  Congress,  585. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  his  services,  309. 

Hancock,  JoBn,  presides  in  Congress,  167; 
signed  the  Declaration,  170 ;  first  signer 
of  the  Declaration,  497. 

Harbor  Bill,  course  of  President  Jackson 
concerning,  353. 

Hardin,  Col.,  description  of  New  Mexico, 
567. 

Harrison,  Wm.  Henry,  President,  481 ;  the 
"  Log  Cabin  '"  candidate,  476;  civil  char 
acter  of,  577. 

Hartford  Convention,  235;  design  of,  253. 

Harvard  College,  40,  48. 

Harvey,  Peter,  story  told  of  Mr.  Webster 
by,  xv. 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  speaks  on  Foot's  resolu 
tion,  227  ;  reply  of  Webster  to,  on  Foot's 
resolution,  227;  votes  on  internal  im 
provement,  245. 

Hemp,  growth  of,  to  be  encouraged,  107  ; 
importation  of,  107 ;  effect  of  increased 
duty  on,  108. 

Henry,  Patrick,  172. 

Henry  the  Seventh,  division  of  land  in  Eng 
land  in  time  of,  44 ;  colonies  planted  in 
the  reign  of,  142. 

Hermitage,  supposed  visit  of  occupant  of, 
to  the  Senate  Chamber,  446. 

Hillard,  Mr.,  remarks  in  Massachusetts 
Senate,  618. 

Hillhouse,  Mr.,  opinion  on  the  embargo 
law,  260. 

Hoar,  Mr.,  mission  of,  to  South  Carolina, 
621. 

Holland,  trade  of,  with  the  United  States, 
93;  our  treaty  with,  of  1782,  170. 

Holt,  Lord,  opinion  of,  respecting  power  of 
visitors  over  corporations,  7. 

Holy  Alliance,  origin  of,  61 ;  effect  on  social 
rights,  62,  64  ;  extract  from  Puffendorf, 
bearing  on  principles  of,  62;  principles 
of  the,  62,  63;  forcible  interference  a 
principle  of,  63. 

Home  Market,  effect  of  manufactures  on, 
84. 

House  of  Commons,  representation  in  the, 
642. 

Hiilsemann  Letter,  written  by  Mr.  Webster, 
679. 

Hume,  Mr.,  remark  on  administration  of 
justice,  315. 

Hungarians,  arrival  of,  in  the  United  States, 
682. 

Hungary,  President  Taylor's  interest  in  the 
revolution  in,  679;  correspondence  relat 
ing  to  revolution  in,  682. 


INDEX. 


697 


Hunter,  Mr.,  678. 

Huskisson,  Mr.,  491 ;  policy  of,  in  respect 

to  commerce,  93. 
Hutchinson,  Gov.,  165. 


I. 


Immortality,  inquiries  concerning,  517. 

Impeachment,  closing  appeal  in  defence  of 
Judge  James  Prescott,  55. 

Imports,  excess  of,  over  exports,  explained, 
93. 

Impressment,  convention  of  1803,  in  respect 
to,  055;  English  law  in  respect  to,  655; 
letter  of  Mr.  Webster  to  Lord  Ashburton 
respecting,  655;  injuries  of,  658;  letter 
of  Lord  Ashburton  on,  659;  rule  of  the 
United  States  in  respect  to,  G58. 

Imprisonment  for  Debt,  abolition  of,  474. 

Inauguration  of  Washington,  312. 

India  and  China,  trade  of  United  States 
with, '96. 

Individual  Rights,  concerning  charities,  12. 

Insolvent  Debtors,  act  of  New  York  con 
cerning,  179. 

Insolvents,  hopeless  condition  of,  472. 

Intellectual  being,  inquiries  of  an,  517. 

Interference,  forcible,  a  principle  of  the 
Holy  Alliance,  63 ;  a  violation  of  public 
law,  65. 

Internal  Improvements,  in  New  England,  43  ; 
progress  of,  80 ;  general  benefit  from,  238 ; 
course  of  South  Carolina  towards,  238; 
at  the  West,  opposition  of  the  South  to, 
240 ;  attention  of  United  States  directed 
to,  242  ;  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Webster 
in  Congress  towards,  243  ;  votes  of  Hayne 
on,  245  ;  Mr.  Calhoun's  bill  for,  466. 

International  Law,  duty  of  United  States 
in  regard  to,  60,  61,  66. 

Ireland,  coasting  trade  of  England  with, 
109 ;  legislation  desired  in,  499. 

Iron,  concerning  home  manufacture  of,  104- 
106;  how  affected  by  tariff  of  1824,  104; 
effect  of  increased  duty  on,  108. 

J. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  veto  on  United  States 
Bank  Bill,  320 ;  opinion  of  Mr.  Webster 
on  the  veto  of  the  Bank  bill,  337,  338 ; 
message  in  regard  to  the  Bank  of  United 
States,  343  ;  uses  his  power  to  remove 
from  office,  347 ;  sentiments  of  Webster 
on  re-election  of,  357 ;  protest  of,  367 ; 
removal  of  deposits  by,  369 ;  recommends 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  against 
France,  420  ;  remarks  of  Mr.  Webster  on, 


423;  his  course  concerning  the  currency, 
434;  inauguration  as  President,  434;  act 
of  making  sales  of  public  lands  payable 
in  gold  and  silver,  438  ;  character  of,  439  ; 
elected  President  vice  Mr.  Adams  in  1828, 
581 ;  idea  of  bridging  the  Potomac,  652. 

James  the  First,  his  tyranny,  377. 

James  the  Second,  attack  on  college  livings 
at  Magdalen  College,  17. 

Jay,  John,  his  services,  311 ;  appointed 
Chief  Justice,  311;  quoted,  538;  treaty 
of  1794  with  England,  608. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  news  of  the  death  of,  156 ; 
birth  and  education  of,  163  ;  elected  to  first 
Congress,  163, 172  ;  his  paper  on  "  Rights 
of-America,"  163  ;  appointed  to  draft  the 
Declaration,  164 ;  remark  on  Adams  in 
Congress,  166  ;  Governor  of  Virginia,  172; 
his  "  Notes  on  Virginia,"  172 ;  Minister 
abroad,  172 ;  Secretary  of  State,  172 ; 
Vice-President  and  President,  172,  173  ; 
his  "  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice," 
172 ;  founded  University  of  Virginia, 
173;  his  scholarship,  173;  last  days  of, 
173;  inscription  for  his  monument,  173; 
Louisiana  acquired  in  administration  of, 
175 ;  correspondence  concerning  the 
Confederation,  287  ;  use  of  his  power  to 
remove  from  office.  348 ;  opposed  to  ex 
pending  money  without  appropriation, 
418  ;  admitted  Louisiana  into  the  Union, 
559 ;  opinion  of  admitting  Louisiana  into 
the  Union,  630  ;  rule  in  respect  to  im 
pressment,  658. 

Jewish  Talmuds,  524. 

Johnson,  Hon.  Richard  M.,  effort  for  aboli 
tion  of  imprisonment  for  debt,  474. 

Johnston,  Samuel,  extract  on  the  Constitu 
tion,  288. 

Jones,  Sir  William,  extract  from,  643. 

Joseph  the  Second,  quoted,  681. 

Judiciary  of  United  States,  to  interpret 
questions  of  constitutional  law,  265,  282  ; 
extent  of  its  power,  265,  293  ;  Mr.  Madi 
son's  opinion  on,  294 ;  Mr.  Pinkney  on 
the,  294 ;  its  duties  and  extent,  316 ; 
how  vacancies  are  filled,  318;  decides 
the  constitutional  laws,  330. 


K. 


Kemble,  Mr.,  anecdote  of,  xxiii. 

Kennistons,  Defence  of  the,  xv. 

Kent,  Chancellor,  remarks  at  Webster  din 
ner  in  New  York,  307. 

King,  Gov.,  action  of,  in  revolution  in 
Rhode  Island,  536. 

King,  Mr.,  of  Alabama,  413. 


INDEX. 


King,  Rufus,  resolution  of,  in  1785,  in  re 
gard  to  slavery,  235 ;  member  of  Con 
gress,  and  of  the  Convention  of  1787, 606  ; 
on  impressment,  657. 

King  Solomon's  Lodge,  erect  a  monument 
to  General  Warren,  123. 

Knapp,  J.  F.  and  J.  J..  Jr.,  convicted  of 
murder  of  Captain  Joseph  White,  193. 

Knowledge,  its  influence  over  governments, 
131-133;  diffusion  of,  in  United  States, 
650. 

Knowlton,  anecdote  of,  xxvi. 

Kossuth,  Louis,  demanded  of  Turkey  by 
Emperor  of  Russia,  598 ;  extract  from 
speech  of  Mr.  Webster  on,  598 ;  his  com 
munication  to  American  Charge  d'Af- 
faires,  682. 


\\  Labor,  how  to  be  protected,  82 ;  different 
prices  of,  105;  protected  by  the  Consti 
tution,  361. 

Laborers,  their  interest  in  the  currency, 
360 ;  character  of  Northern,  620 ;  of  the 
North,  compared  with  Southern  slaves, 
620. 

Labor-Saving  Machines,  451. 

Lafayette,  Gen.,  addressed  by  Webster  at 
Bunker  Hill,  130. 

Land,  a  subdivision  of,  necessary  to  free 
form  of  government,  44;  effect  of  taxa 
tion  on  division  of,  in  England.  44;  how 
holden  in  England  in  time  of  Henry  the 
Seventh,  44 ;  prophecy  concerning  sub 
division  of,  on  government  of  France,  44, 
53. 

Landing  of  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  picture 
representing,  52. 

Lands,  Public,  Mr.  Foot's  resolution  in  re 
gard  to,  227  ;  views  of  Mr.  Webster  con 
cerning  the  disposition  of,  237,  238 ; 
powers  of  government  to  donate  for  local 
improvement,  238 ;  donations  of,  neces 
sary  for  local  improvement,  239;  liberal 
reduction  in  price  of,  favored  by  New  Eng 
land,  241 ;  whence  obtained,  426  ;  States 
have  no  sovereignty  over,  420  ;  question 
of  revenue  connected  with,  427;  liberal 
policy  in  respect  to  sales  of,  427  ;  revenue 
arising  from  sales  of,  428 ;  act  making 
sales  of,  payable  in  gold  and  silver, 
438. 

Lansdowne,  Lord,  quoted  on  prohibitory 
duties,  86,  94. 

Law,  of  the  land,  relating  to  individual  fran 
chise,  16 ;  interest  and  duty  of  United 
States  in  international,  66 ;  criminal,  its 


object,  198 ;  Mr.  Webster's  respect  for, 
319 ;  representation  the  foundation  of, 
643  ;  the  supreme  rule,  643. 

Laws,  validity  of,  not  to  depend  upon  the 
motive,  301. 

Laybach,  circular  of  sovereigns  at,  62. 

Lay  preaching  and  lay  teaching,  513. 

League,  defined,  278. 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  resolution  of  June, 
1776,  163. 

Legislation,  society  to  be  regarded  in,  103  ; 
concurrent  power  of  States  with  Congress, 
116-118;  will  of  the  people  ascertained  by, 
541. 

Legislative  Power,  over  charters,  defined, 
5;  restriction  imposed  upon,  23. 

Legislature,  Acts  of.  See  Acts  of  Legisla 
ture. 

Legislature,  power  of  King  over  corpora 
tions,  limited  by,  5  ;  power  of,-  to  create 
corporations,  5  ;  power  of,  over  charters, 
limited,  6  ;  cannot  resume  grants  of  land 
given  for  educational  or  religio'us  pur 
poses,  13  ;  power  of,  to  affect  individual 
rights,  15  ;  cannot  repeal  statutes  creating 
private  corporations,  20;  power  of,  re 
strained  by  Ordinance  of  1787,  234. 

Legislatures,  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  United  States,  286. 

Leigh,  Mr.,  412. 

Letters  of  Marque,  against  France,  asked 
by  President  Jackson,  420. 

Liberties,  defined,  11. 

Liberty,  love  of  religious,  29 ;  character 
istics  of,  122  ;  the  contests  for,  385  ;  prin 
ciples  of  American,  536 ;  of  Greece,  Rome, 
and  America,  641,  642. 

Lincolnshire,  Pilgrims  in,  30. 

Literature,  its  advantages  in  public  life, 
174  ;  progress  in,  649. 

Liverpool  Blue  Coat  School,  528. 

Liverpool,  Lord,  491  ;  on  freedom  of  trade, 
86. 

Livingston  and  Fulton,  right  of  steam  navi 
gation  granted  by  New  York,  112. 

Livingston,  Chancellor,  his  services,  311. 

Livingston,  Robert  R.,  126. 

Local  institutions  for  local  purposes,  and 
general  institutions  for  general  purposes, 
498. 

Local  legislation,  benefits  of,  498,  499. 

Log  Cabin  Candidate,  remarks  on,  476. 

Log  Cabin,  origin  of  the  term,  476. 

Louisiana,  acquisition  of,  175;  how  ob 
tained,  429 ;  slave-holding  States  framed 
from,  603  ;  admission  of,  into  the  Union, 
630  ;  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinion  of  admitting 
to  the  Union,  630. 

Luther,  Reformation  of,  143. 


INDEX. 


699 


M. 


Macaulay,  extract  from,  on  English  lawyers 
and  English  statesmen,  xli. 

McCleary,  fell  at  Charlestovvn,  130. 

McDowell,  Governor  of  Virginia,  619. 

MacDuffie,  speech  on  Internal  Improve 
ments  referred  to,  244. 

Machinery,  law  prohibiting  exportation  of, 
from  England,  91. 

Machines,  not  labor-saving,  but  labor-doing, 
451. 

McLane,  Louis,  instructions  to,  concerning 
colonial  trade,  581. 

McLeod,  Alexander,  case  of,  482. 

Madison,  James,  knowledge  of  the  Consti 
tution,  247,  256,  313 ;  on  the  Judiciary, 
294;  extracts  from,  on  duties  on  imports, 
303  ;  his  public  services,  310,  312 ;  opinion 
on  nullification,  313  ;  Secretary  of  State 
and  President,  313 ;  approved  United 
States  Bank,  331 ;  opinion  in  regard  to 
removal  from  office,  347 ;  on  impeach 
ment,  431 ;  Secretary  of  State,  559  ;  ar 
ticle  of,  admitting  Louisiana  into  Union, 
559;  opinion  of,  on  slavery,  606. 

Majority  Government,  295. 

Mann,  A.  D.,  instructions  to,  683. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  opinion  of,  on  chartered 
rights,  5 ;  foundation  of  colleges  consid 
ered  by,  9. 

Manufactures,  acts  of  1816  and  1824  respect 
ing,  99. 

Marathon,  battle  of,  how  affected  Greece, 
28. 

Marshfield,  speech  at,  Sept.  1,  1848,  575. 

Martial  Law,  defined,  549. 

Martin,  Mr.,  opinions  on  the  Judiciary,  294; 
objections  to  the  Constitution,  303. 

Maryland,  settlement  of,  125. 

Mason,  J.  W.,  on  slave  labor,  573;  bill  con 
cerning  fugitive  slaves,  617. 

Mason,  Jeremiah,  death  of,  589;  obituary 
remarks  of  Mr.  Webster,  589  ;  resolutions 
on  death  of,  589 ;  his  ancestry,  590 ;  ap 
pointed  Attorney-General,  592 ;  Senator 
of  United  States,  593 ;  his  style  as  an 
orator,  xix ;  his  respect  for  Daniel  Web 
ster,  xx. 

Massachusetts,  participation  in  English 
Revolution,  39 ;  commercial  progress  of, 
40;  voted  against  tariff  of  1824,  110; 
Constitution  of,  when  framed  and  revised, 
170,  171;  eulogium  on  (Webster),  254; 
opposes  the  embargo  law,  260  ;  duty  to 
the  Constitution,  358  ;  her  general  pros 
perity,  451 ;  her  action  on  abdication  of 
James  II.,  537. 

Mathers,  father  and  son,  39. 


Mayflower,  compact  signed  in  her  cabin, 
35 ;  object  of  her  voyage,  143. 

Melville,  Major,  removed  from  custom 
house,  348. 

Members  of  Congress,  appointment  of,  to 
office,  350. 

Merchant  Vessels,  national  territory,  656. 

Message,  of  President  Monroe  on  foreign  in 
terference,  approved  by  Lord  Brougham, 
155  ; .  how  received  by  the  people,  155  ; 
of  Gen.  Jackson,  1829,  views  in  respect 
to  Bank  of  the  United  States,  434. 

Methodist  Church  v.  Remington,  case  of,  530. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  separation  of, 
in  regard  to  slavery,  604. 

Mexican  treaty,  clauses  ceding  New  Mex 
ico  and  California,  587 ;  Mr.  Webster's 
vote  in  respect  to,  587. 

Mexican  War,  speech  on,  551;  objects  of 
the,  552,  553.  556. 

Mexico,  the  Sixteen  Million  Loan  Bill  for 
prosecuting  war  with,  551 ;  treaty  of  1848 
between  United  States  and,  551 ;  objects 
of  the  war  with,  the  cession  of  territory, 
552,  553,  556;  forced  to  cede  territory  to 
United  States,  552,  601 ;  aversion  of,  to 
cede  territory,  557  ;  war  declared  against, 
601 ;  the  treaty  with,  632. 

Military  Academy  at  West  Point,  the  ap 
propriation  for,  408. 

Military  Achievements,  important  by  their 
results,  28. 

Milton,  John,  use  of  words,  xiii. 

Missionaries  in  Georgia,  35o. 

Mississippi  River,  future  centre  of  the 
country,  622. 

Missouri  Compromise,  line  of,  570. 

Missouri,  law  for  the  admission  of,  569. 

Monmouth,  associations  of,  339. 

Monopolies,  report  on  impracticability  of, 
89;  power  of  Congress  over,  116;  effect 
of  State  power  over,  119. 

Monroe,  James,  extract  from  message  on  the 
struggle  in  Greece,  58 ;  extract  from  mes 
sage  concerning  foreign  interference,  153. 

Morris,  Robert,  notice  of,  497. 

Morton,  Perez,  delivered  eulogy  on  Gen. 
Warren,  123. 

Murder,  of  Capt.  Joseph  White,  at  Salem, 
189  ;  portrayed,  195 ;  what  constitutes  a 
principal  in,  207;  what  constitutes  an 
abettor  to,  208  ;  two  sorts  of,  208. 

Murphy,  Mr.,  in  regard  to  Texas,  612. 


N. 

Napoleon,  attempt  in  respect  to  cotton,  99. 
Nashville  Convention,  622. 


700 


INDEX. 


National  Law,  concerning  offences  against 
the,  698 ;  Emperor  of  Russia  bound  by, 
698. 

Natural  Hatred  of  Poor  for  the  Rich,  re 
marks  of  Webster  on,  359.  / 

Navigation,  English  act  of  166^ restricting 
the  trade  of  the  N.  E.  Colonies,  37  ;  con 
dition  of  that  of  United  States  (1824),  83  ; 
of  Hudson  River  and  Long  Island  Sound, 
exclusive  claim  of  Fulton  to,  112. 

Navy,  creation  of,  175 ;  Mr.  Webster's 
early  support  to  the,  461  ;  of  the  United 
States,  its  strength  in  1850,  649. 

Neutrality  of  United  States,  defined,  152. 

New  England,  discourse  on  First  Settlement 
of,  25;  first  settlement  of,  28;  English  Act 
of  Navigation,  1660,  restricting  trade  of, 
37  ;  progress  of  the  first  century  of,  38  ; 
opening  of  second  century  of,  40 ;  popu 
lation  of,  in  18*20,  40 ;  her  part  in  wars  be 
tween  England  and  France,  42  ;  war  of 
the  Revolution  begun  in,  42  ;  internal  im 
provement  in,  43 ;  the  subdivision  of  lands 
in,  necessary,  43,  44  ;  right  of  primogeni 
ture  abolished  in,  44  ;  free  schools  of,  47  ; 
prosperity  of,  in  1824,  78 ;  forced  into 
manufactures,  110;  causes  which  led  to 
settlement  of,  141-144;  its  free  schools, 
174 ;  attack  of  Hayne  on,  236, 249  ;  policy 
of,  concerning  Western  population,  238; 
interest  of,  in  public  improvements,  239  ; 
when,  how,  and  why  her  measures  favor 
the  West,  240  ;  favors  reduction  of  price 
of  public  lands,  241 ;  supported  adminis 
tration  of  Washington,  250;  her  course 
concerning  the  embargo,  261 ;  New  Eng 
land  Society  of  New  York,  object  of  its 
formation,  500 ;  settlement  of,  501. 

New  Hampshire,  acts  of  Legislature,  relat 
ing  to  Dartmouth  College,  1,  14,  15,  16, 
18;  legislative  and  judicial  power,  sepa 
rate,  15 ;  extract  from  speech,  at  festival 
of  natives  of,  598. 

New  Jersey,  law  of,  concerning  steam  navi 
gation,  112  ;  resolutions  concerning  com 
merce,  115. 

New  Mexico,  proposed  annexation  of,  562; 
population  of,  563 ;  country  described  by 
Major  Gaines,  565  ;  nature  of  country  in 
habitants,  566 ;  prognostications  of  Mr. 
Webster  in  regard  to  admission  of,  568 ; 
article  of  cession  to  United  States,  587  ; 
existence  of  peonism  in,  615;  slavery  ex 
cluded  from,  by  law  of  nature,  615. 

Newton,  Isaac,  158. 

New  York,  grant  of  steam  navigation  to 
John  Fitch,  112  ;  grant  of  steam  naviga 
tion  to  Livingston  and  Fulton,  112;  laws 
of,  concerning  steam  navigation,  1 12, 113  ; 


act  of,  concerning  insolvent  debtors,  179; 
insolvent  law  of,  183  ;  public  dinner  given 
to  Webster  in,  307  ;  growth  of,  contempo 
rary  with  the  Constitution,  309  ;  her  loy 
alty  to  the  Union,  318 ;  toast  of  Webster 
to  City  of,  319  ;  Reception  of  Webster  at, 
in  1837,  422 ;  law  of  1845  in  respect  to 
elections,  542;  her  vote  for  annexing 
Texas,  631. 

Niles,  J.  M.,  his  vote  for  admission  of  Texas, 
611. 

North,  duty  of,  in  respect  to  fugitive  slaves, 
617  ;  complaints  of,  against  the  South, 
620. 

North  and  South,  grievances  of,  617,  620. 

Northern  Democracy,  policy  of,  611. 

Northwestern  Territory,  concerning  slavery 
in,  234  ;  slavery  excluded  from,  571. 

Nullification,  right  of,  denied,  257  ;  right 
of,  never  advanced  in  New  England,  263  ; 
practical  operations  of,  in  South  Carolina, 
266 ;  practical  operation  of,  279,  282,  298 ; 
threatened  in  South  Carolina,  355;  dan 
gerous  tendency  of,  355. 


0. 


Oath,  legal  definition  of,  526. 

Office.     See  Removal  from  Office. 

Ogden,  A.,  his  right  to  navigation,  113. 

Ogdeii  v.  Saunders,  argument  in  case  of, 
179. 

Ohio,  settled  mostly  by  Southern  emigra 
tion,  574. 

Old  Colony  Club,  formation  of,  25. 

Old  Thirteen,  their  public  lands,  426. 

Ordinance  of  1787,  drafted  by  Nathan  Dane, 
231,  234;  prohibits  slavery,  231;  re 
strained  legislative  power,  234. 

Oregon,  bill  to  organize  a  government  for, 
569;  established  a  free  Territory,  587; 
government  of,  established,  616. 

Ormichund  r.  Barker,  case  of,  526. 

Orphans,  provision  of  Stephen  Girard  for 
education  of,  506. 

Otis,  James,  his  speech  on  Writs  of  Assist 
ance  noticed,  161. 


P. 


Paine,  Robert  Treat,  170 ;  delegate  to  Con 
gress,  162. 

Paine,  Thomas,  extract  from  his  "  Age  of 
Reason,"  514. 

Panama  Mission,  speech  on,  152. 

Paper  Currency,  of  England,  effect  on  prices, 
81 ;  the  evils  of,  82  ;  experiment  of  a  re- 


INDEX. 


701 


deemable,  3ttf  ;  advantages  of  a,  in  the 
United  States,  363 ;  prediction  concern 
ing  irredeemable,  365. 

Parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  647 ;  the  wid 
ow's  mite,  referred  to,  519. 

Parker,  Chief  Justice,  207  ;  death  of,  194. 

Parliament,  power  of,  over  the  Colonies, 
1G5. 

Parmenter,  Mr.,  voted  for  tariff  of  1842, 
489. 

Parthenon,  referred  to,  346. 

Parties,  origin  of,  250 ;  violence  of,  251. 

Party  Spirit,  Washington's  exhortation 
against,  345. 

Patent-Office,  established,  648. 

Patterson,  Mr.,  propositions  of,  in  regard  to 
Confederation,  287. 

Peace,  the  policy  of  the  United  States,  59. 

Peaceable  Secession,  the  impossibility  of, 
621. 

Penn,  William,  529. 

Pennsylvania,  memorial  to  abolish  slavery, 
232 ;  opinion  on  tariff  bill,  258,  262 ;  how 
affected  by  veto  of  U.  S.  Bank  Bill,  323  ; 
of  Christian  origin,  512 ;  the  public  policy 
of,  529 ;  laws  of,  in  regard  to  charitable 
bequests,  530. 

Peonisrn,  existence  of,  in  New  Mexico,  615. 

People,  source  of  power,  257 ;  will  of,  to  be 
ascertained  by  legislation,  541. 

Perkins,  Thomas  H.,  eulogized,  138. 

Peter  the  Great,  policy  of  Russia  developed 
under,  69. 

Philadelphia,  convention  of  Whigs  at,  575. 

Phillips  v.  Bury,  case  of  Exeter  College,  7. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  amendment  to  Mr. 
Calhoun'sbill  for  internal  improvements, 
466. 

Pilgrim  Fathers,  first  celebration  of  anni 
versary  of  landing  of,  25 ;  our  homage 
for,  27  ;  prophecy  for  the  future  of  their 
work,  29;  motives  which  led  them  into 
exile,  29 ;  departure  of,  for  Holland,  30 ; 
establish  their  government,  35  ;  their  pur 
poses  and  prospects  in  emigration,  35. 

Pilgrim  Festival  at  New  York,  speech  of 
Mr.  Webster,  496. 

Pilgrim  Society,  formation  of,  25. 

Pinkney,  Thomas,  opinion  on  the  Judiciary, 
294. 

Plymouth,  Landing  of  Pilgrims  at,  speech 
in  commemoration  of,  Dec.  22,  1820,  25 ; 
speech  of  Dec.  22,  1843,  496. 

Plymouth  Rock,  landing  on,  described,  27. 

Policy,  of  United  States,  peaceful,  59;  neu 
tral,  defined,  152. 

Political  Parties,  existence  of,  250. 

Political  Power,  the  people  the  source  of, 
537. 


Political  Revolution,  132. 

Polk,  James  K.,  will  of,  to  take  territory 
from  Mexico,  557 ;  remarks  of  Mr.  Web 
ster  on,  558;  elected  President  in  1844, 
583 ;  avowal  in  respect  to  Mexican  war, 
602. 

Poor,  the,  and  the  Rich,  359. 

Pope,  quotation  from,  583. 

Popular  Knowledge,  progress  of,  and  the 
causes,  450. 

Posterity,  our  relation  to,  26. 

Potomac  River,  idea  of  President  Jackson 
to  bridge  the,  652. 

Prescott,  Judge  James,  closing  appeal  in 
defence  of,  55. 

Prescott,  William,  at  Bunker  Hill,  138. 

President  of  the  United  States,  power  of 
removal  from  office,  329;  no  power  to 
decide  constitutionality  of  laws,  330; 
power  to  remove  and  to  control  an  officer, 
369 ;  former  practice  of,  to  address  Con 
gress  in  person,  374  ;  power  of  appointing 
public  officers,  383 ;  oath  of,  384  ;  is  re 
sponsible  to  the  people,  391 ;  not  the  sole 
representative  of  the  people,  391  ;  power 
of,  over  removal  from  office,  397,  399 ; 
custom  of,  on  last  day  of  a  session  of 
Congress,  413 ;  duty  of,  417  ;  how  com 
municate  his  wishes  to  Congress,  417; 
called  the  representative  of  the  Ameri 
can  people,  432. 

Presidential  Protest,  speech  on,  367;  gen 
eral  doctrines  of,  392 

Presidential  Veto  of  United  States  Bank 
Bill,  speech  on,  320. 

Press,  freedom  of,  essential  to  free  govern 
ment,  619;  violence  of,  in  respect  to  slav 
ery,  619. 

Primogeniture,  the  right  of,  abolished  in 
New  England,  44. 

Property,  general  division  of,  necessary  to 
free  government,  45. 

Proscription,  exercised  by  President  Jack 
son,  348 ;  political,  danger  of,  to  the 
government,  349. 

Protection,  incidental,  policy  of  England, 
84 ;  should  be  limited,  entire  prohibition 
destructive,  90 ;  Mr.  Webster's  views  on, 
428  ;  an  object  of  the  revolution  of  1840, 
489. 

Public  Credit,  in  1842,  494. 

Public  Lands.     See  Lands,  Public. 

Public  Law,  extract  from  Puffendorf  on, 
62 ;  forcible  interference  a  violation  of, 
65. 

Public  Moneys,  to  whom  belongs  the  cus 
tody  of,  368 ;  place  of  deposit  of,  fixed  by 
Congress,  370;  power  of  Congress  over, 
382;  extract  from  Protest  in  regard  to, 


702 


INDEX. 


882 ;  law  of  1836  to  regulate  deposits  of, 
437. 

Public  Opinion,  power  of,  67,  483  ;  its  influ 
ence  over  governments,  133. 

Public  Worship,  in  United  States,  651. 

Puffendorf,  extract  from,  bearing  on  prin 
ciples  of  Holy  Alliance,  62. 

Putnam,  Judge,  532. 


Q- 

Quakers,  their  preachers,  524. 
Quincy,  Josiah,  Jr.,  quoted,  129. 
Quincy,  Hon.  Josiah,  159. 


R. 


Radicals,  of  South  Carolina,  244. 

Railroads,  first  in  America,  126. 

Raleigh,  Sir  W.,  referred  to,  143. 

Randolph,  Jefferson,  proposition  of,  to 
abolish  slavery,  619. 

Randolph,  Gov.,  on  domestic  slavery,  232. 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  reporter  of  Mr.  Web 
ster's  speeches,  xxiv. 

Reception  of  Mr.  Webster  at  Boston,  Sept. 
30,  1842,  481  ;  at  Buffalo,  May  22,  1851, 
626  ;  at  New  York,  307. 

Reformation,  provisions  for  religious  in 
struction  in  schools  at  time  of,  526. 

Religion,  the  only  conservative  principle, 
524;  state  of  society  without,  525;  sup 
posed  case  of  a  graduate  of  Girard  Col 
lege  questioned  in  regard  to,  525 ;  neces 
sity  of,  to  man,  650. 

Removal  from  Office,  speech  of  Webster  on, 
347  ;  power  of  President  in  regard  to,  347, 
397,  399  ;  decision  of  Congress  in  regard 
to,  347  ;  Mr.  Madison's  opinion  in  regard 
to,  347  ;  Mr.  Jefferson's  use  of  the  power 
of,  348;  concerning  the  press,  351;  ex 
tract  from  constitution  of  England  on, 
389;  dangers  of  unlimited  power  in,  395; 
act  of  1820  in  regard  to,  396,  397 ;  act  of 
1789  on,  397,  401,  402,  404,  405 ;  Constitu 
tion  of  U.  S.  on,  398;  manner  of,  400; 
power  of,  incident  to  power  of  appoint 
ment,  400,  401,  402 ;  effect  of  a  nomina 
tion  on,  401 ;  concerning  inferior  officers, 
402 ;  reasons  must  be  stated  for,  404. 

Removal  of  Deposits,  object  of,  366  ;  by  ex 
ecutive  power,  369. 

Reply  to  Hayne,  by  Webster,  227. 

Representation,  American  system  of,  46  ; 
in  connection  with  government,  341 ;  in 
equality  of,  produced  by  annexing  slave 
•States,  561;  of  slaves,  complaints  of  the 


North  against,  620 ;  popular  governments 
established  on  the  basis  of,  642  ;  in  House 
of  Commons,  642  ;  the  foundation  for  law 
643. 

Representative  Government,  experiment 
of,  341. 

Representative  System  in  England,  538. 

Republican  Government.  /See  Government, 
American. 

Repudiation  denounced,  494. 

Resolutions,  for  appointment  of  an  agent  to 
Greece,  57  ;  by  John  Adams,  preparatory 
to  the  Declaration,  163 ;  of  Congress  on 
Declaration  of  Independence,  165 ;  of 
Foot  in  Congress,  in  regard  to  Public 
Lands,  227 ;  of  Congress  concerning  slav 
ery,  233;  of  Calhoun  concerning  State 
sovereignty,  273  ;  of  Convention  of  1787, 
287;  of  Senate  concerning  executive 
veto,  368 ;  on  slavery  in  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  445 ;  on  Mr.  Webster's  speech  on 
Girard  will,  505  ;  from  State  Legislatures 
respecting  slavery,  618. 

Retrospective  law,  defined,  14 ;  extract 
from  Chief  Justice  Kent  on,  14;  passage 
of,  prohibited,  14. 

Revenue,  Mr.  Webster's  views  on,  428. 

Revolution,  defined,  277. 

Revolution,  American,  causes  of,  37;  begun 
in  New  England,  42;  commemorated  by 
Bunker  Hill  Monument,  125,  126;  sur 
vivors  of,  at  Bunker  Hill,  127  ;  character 
of  state  papers  of,  130;  originated  on  a 
question  of  principle,  371. 

Revolution  in  Greece,  speech  on,  57. 

Revolution  of  1840,  its  objects,  488. 

Revolution,  Political,  132. 

Rhetoric,  Daniel  Webster  as  a  master  of 
English  style,  xi. 

Rhode  Island,  argument  on  government  of, 
535;  proceedings  of  revolutionary  party 
of  1841  in,  535 ;  proceedings  of  the  Dorr 
party  in,  544 ;  new  constitution  of,  545 ; 
action  of  President  Tyler  in  respect  to 
insurrection  in,  547;  error  of  charter 
government  of,  549  ;  good  effects  of  the 
agitation  in,  549. 

Rich,  Capt.  Benjamin,  487. 

Richmond,  Va.,  address  to  the  ladies  of, 
478. 

Right  of  Approach,  of  ships  of  war  at  sea, 
664. 

Right  of  Search,  letter  of  Mr.  Webster  on 
the,  660;  British  claim  to,  662;  not  dis 
tinct  from  right  of  visit,  662  ;  view  of  the 
United  States,  on,  664-666;  Lord  Aber 
deen  on  the,  670. 

Rights,  Legal,  not  affected  by  pecuniary 
profit,  12 ;  of  electors,  12  ;  of  individuals, 


INDEX. 


703 


in  regard  to  own  property,  12 ;  individ 
ual,  protected  by  law,  15. 

Rio  Grande,  Texas  claims  to  line  of,  562 ; 
worthlessness  of  the  valley  of  the,  565. 

Rives,  W.  C.,  opinions  of  the  Constitution, 
284. 

Robbins,  Rev.  Chandler,  delivers  address 
on  anniversary  of  landing  of  Pilgrims,  25. 

Robinson,  Rev.  John,  30,  31. 

Rome,  liberty  of,  642. 

Rusk,  Mr.,  Senator  from  Texas,  563. 

Russia,  extract  from  Emperor  on  proper 
policy,  64 ;  under  Peter  the  Great,  69 ; 
excited  the  Greeks  to  rebellion,  69 ;  under 
Catharine  the  Second,  70;  her  trade  with 
the  United  States,  93  ;  Emperor  of,  bound 
by  the  law  of  nations,  598 ;  Emperor  of, 
demands  Kossuth  of  Turkey,  598. 

Ruxton,  Mr.,  description  of  New  Mexico, 
567. 


s. 


Sabbath,  convention  at  Columbus,  0.,  in 
regard  to  observance  of  the,  518;  the  ob 
servance  of,  a  part  of  Christianity,  518. 

St.  Asaph,  Bishop  of,  extract  from  dis 
course,  640. 

Salem,  sentiments  of,  at  the  closing  of  port 
of  Boston,  129 ;  General  Court  at,  162. 

Sargent,  Henry,  picture  representing  Land 
ing  of  the  Pilgrims,  by,  52. 

Schools,  founded  by  charity,  must  include 
religious  instruction,  528. 

Schools  of  New  England,  174. 

Science  and  literature,  51. 

Scio,  destruction  of,  73. 

Scott,  Gen.  Winfield,  brilliant  campaign  of, 
554 ;  referred  to,  578. 

Seamen,  letter  of  Daniel  Webster  on  im 
pressment  of,  658. 

Search.     See  Right  of  Search. 

Secession,  defined,  276 ;  right  of  States  to, 
denied,  278,  282  ;  practical  consequences 
of,  279  ;  no  such  thing  as  peaceable,  621 ; 
of  Virginia,  improbability  of,  646 ;  men 
of  the  Southern  States  addressed  in  re 
spect  to,  647. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  his  custody  of 
the  public  moneys,  368. 

Senate  of  the  United  States,  a  body  of, 
equals,  229 ;  resolution  concerning  execu 
tive  veto,  368;  its  right  of  self-defence, 
372. 

Shakspeare,  use  of  words,  xiii. 

Shaw,  Chief  Justice,  632. 

Sheridan,  remark  of,  xxv. 

Sherman,  Roger,  appointed  to  draft  the 
Declaration,  164. 


Shipping  Interest,  how  affected  by  tariff  of 
1824,  108. 

Shipping  of  England,  provisions  in  respect 
to,  109. 

Ships  of  War,  their  right  to  approach  ves 
sels  at  sea,  664. 

Silk,  manufacture  of,  in  England,  87. 

Silsbee,  Hon.  N.,  349. 

"  Sink  or  swim,  survive  or  perish,"  etc., 
168. 

Slave,  and  Slavery,  words  not  found  in  the 
Constitution,  606. 

Slave-holding  States,  advantages  of,  in  re 
spect  to  representation,  233  ;  rights  of, 
in  regard  to  new  territories,  572. 

Slave  Labor,  its  relation  to  free,  573  ;  com 
pared  with  laboring  men  of  the  North, 
620. 

Slavery,  prohibited  by  Ordinance  of  1787, 
231 ;  petitions  to  first  Congress  to  abolish, 
232 ;  memorial  from  Pennsylvania  to  abol 
ish,  232 ;  Gov.  Randolph,  sentiments  on, 
232  ;  Mr.  Webster's  sentiments  on,  232 ; 
Congress  has  no  power  over,  in  the 
States,  233;  plans  for  exclusion  of,  in 
Northwestern  Territory,  234 ;  resolution 
of  Ruf  us  King  in  regard  to,  235 ;  views 
of  Mr.  Webster  on,  429 ;  beyond  the 
power  of  Congress,  429 ;  recognized  by 
the  Constitution,  429,  570;  inexpediency 
of  annexing  slave  States,  429  ;  in  District 
of  Columbia,  remarks  on,  445;  Mr.  Web 
ster's  opinion  in  regard  to  power  of  Con 
gress  over,  462  ;  speech  on  exclusion  of 
from  the  territories,  569;  peculiarity  of 
American,  570;  entailed  upon  the  colo 
nies  by  England,  571 ;  Congress  has  no 
control  over,  571,  636;  excluded  from 
Northwestern  Territory,  571  ;  exists  by 
local  laws,  573  ;  Mr.  Webster's  opinion 
of  extension  of  slavery  and  slave  repre 
sentation,  574 ;  the  Compromise  Line  in 
respect  to  extension  of,  588 ;  resolutions 
of  Henry  Clay  in  respect  to,  600;  pros 
pect  of  California  and  New  Mexico  being 
free  States,  602  ;  its  existence  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  603;  sentiments  of 
the  North  and  South  on,  at  framing  of 
the  Constitution,  605;  Ordinance  of  1787 
in  respect  to,  606 ;  Mr.  Madison's  opinion 
on,  606;  concurrence  of  sentiment  be 
tween  North  and  South  on  subject  of, 
607 ;  causes  which  led  to  an  extension 
of,  in  the  South,  608  ;  change  of  opinion 
of  the  South  in  respect  to,  608  ;  character 
of  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
fixed  beyond  power  of  the  government, 
609 ;  excluded  from  California  and  New 
Mexico  by  law  of  nature,  615, 632  ;  effect 


704 


INDEX. 


of  abolition  societies  at  the  North,  619; 
proposition  of  Mr.  Randolph  in  respect 
to,  619  ;  comparison  of  slaves  of  South 
and  laboring  people  of  the  North,  620 ; 
complaints  of  the  North  concerning  repre- 
.  sentation  in  Congress,  620;  concerning 
'  transportation  of  free  colored  people, 
623;  Mr.  Webster's  course  concerning, 
630 ;  proceedings  of  antislavery  conven 
tions,  635. 

Slaves,  emancipation  of,  in  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  375;   provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion  in  respect  to  fugitive,  629. 
Slave  Trade,  remarks  of  Mr.  Webster  on, 
49  ;  American  policy  concerning  the,  666. 
Smith,  Gen.,  vote  on  bank  question,  328. 
Smith,  Hon.  Truman,  speech  referred  to, 

566. 

Smith,  Mr.,  of  South  Carolina,  on  protec 
tion,  304. 

Smithson,  Hugh,  founded  Smithsonian  In 
stitute,  652. 

Smithsonian  Institute,  establishment,  652. 
Social  system,  elements  of  a,  established  by 

compact  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  35. 
Society,  rights  of,  affected  by  principles  of 

Holy  Alliance,  62,  64. 

South,  policy  of,  toward  Western  improve 
ment,  238 ;  complaints  concerning  their 
rights,  572;  the  lead  in  the  politics  of  the 
country,  608;  complaints  of,  against  the 
North,  617. 

South  America,  combination  of  European 

Sovereigns  against,  66 ;  position  of  U.  S. 

government  towards,  66  ;  revolution  in, 

134  ;  Spanish  colonies  of,  134. 

South  American  Republics,  our  relations  to, 

152. 

South  Carolina,  concerning  internal  im 
provements,  238,  243  ;  her  action  on  tariff 
of  1816,  243  ;  radical  party  in,  244  ;  at 
tack  on,  disclaimed,  253 ;  eulogium  on, 
(Webster,)  254;  doctrine  of,  concerning 
State  rights,  255 ;  in  1775,  and  1828,  259  ; 
relation  to  England  in  1775,  259;  resist 
ance  to  laws  of  the  Union  advised,  259; 
practical  operation  of  nullification  in, 
266  ;  nullification  threatened  in,  355. 
Southern  Confederacy,  impossibility  of,  621. 
Spain,  French  invasion  of,  67, 153  ;  want  of 
protection  in,  99 ;  overthrow  of  popular 
government  in,  153;  invites  co-operation 
of  Holy  Alliance  over  colonies  in  Ameri 
ca,  154. 

Spanish  Settlements  in  America,  144. 
Specie,  unusual  demand  for,  and  the  cause, 
81 ;   drain  of,  owing  to  French  Indem 
nity  Loan,  81 ;  the  exportation    of,  95 ; 
experiment  of  an  exclusive  specie  cur 


rency,  362;  treasury  order  concerning 
payments  for  public  lands,  438 ;  its  uses, 
441 ;  the  effect  of  withholding  circula 
tion,  441. 

Specie  Payment,  suspension  of,  443. 

Speech  on  the  "  Panama  Mission,"  152. 

Spencer,  Judge,  319. 

Sprague,  Judge,  532. 

Standish,  Miles,  27. 

State  Banks,  issue  of  small  notes  by,  not 
advisable,  363. 

State  Interposition,  right  of,  292. 

State  Laws,  in'  opposition  to  law  of  Con 
gress,  supreme,  122  ;  prohibition  on,  con 
cerning  bankruptcy,  186  ;  prohibition  on, 
in  regard  to  contracts,  187 ;  in  conflict 
with  the  Constitution,  265. 

State  Rights  Party,  Mr.  Calhoun's  espousal 
of  the,  464. 

States,  concurrent  power  of,  argued,  116, 
117  ;  doctrine  of  Soutli  Carolina  concern 
ing  rights  of,  255 ;  resolution  of  Virginia, 
1798,  concerning  rights  of,  256,  263;  sov- 
ereignt}-  limits  of,  257  ;  right  of,  whence 
derived,  264 ;  Calhoun's  resolutions  on 
sovereignty  of,  273  ;  taxing  power  of, 
limited,  336  ;  have  no  sovereignty  over 
public  lands,  426  ;  concerning  insurrec 
tion  in  one  of  the,  543 ;  inequality  of 
representation  in  annexing  slave  States, 
561. 

Stevenson,  Andrew,  487. 

Stiles,  Mr.,  correspondence  of,  relating  to 
Hungary,  682. 

Stillingfleet,  Bishop,  argument  on  power  of 
visitation  over  corporations,  8. 

Story,  Mr.  Justice,  death  of,  532;  eulogy  of 
Mr.  Webster  on,  532 ;  respect  of  English 
lawyers  to,  533 ;  character  of,  534. 

Strogonoff,  Baron,  concerning  the  massacre 
of  the  Greeks,  71. 

Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  decision  in  bank 
ruptcy  case  of,  180. 

Suffrage,  principles  of    American   govern 
ment  in  respect  to,  539. 
Sullivan,  William,  137. 
Supreme  Court  of  United  States,  its  object, 
293 ;    judges   of,   how    appointed,    318  ; 
concerning   a   nomination  for  judge  of, 
413. 
Sweden,  export  of  iron  fron,  105. 


T. 


Tariff,  bill  to  amend  the  (1828),  77  ;  speech 

of  Mr.  Webster  on,  77  ;  "  American  "  and 

"foreign  policy"  applied  to  system  of, 

•78;  protective  system  of  England,  84; 


INDEX. 


705 


of  181G  and  1824,  respecting  manufac 
tures,  99;  of  1824,  carried  by  Middle 
States,  110  ;  of  1824,  Massachusetts  voted 
against,  110  ;  earliest  advocates  of,  243 
of  1816,  243;  of  1824,  248;  of  1828,  248 
258 ;  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Webster  in 
regard  to,  247,  463 ;  resolutions  adopted 
in  Boston  in  regard  to,  463;  of  1816,  a 
South  Carolina  measure,  history  of,  465; 
of  1816,  New  England  against,  465 ;  of 
1842,  how  passed,  489. 
Taxation,  effect  of,  on  landholders  in  Eng 
land,  44. 

Taylor,  Gen.  Zachary,  at  Buena  Vista,  559  ; 
as  a  candidate  for  President,  576-579; 
personal  character  of,  577 ;  his  interest  in 
the  revolutionary  movement  in  Hungary, 
679. 

Tea,  increase  of  its  consumption,  80. 
Terrett  v.  Taylor,  protection  of  grant,  20. 
Territory,  cession  of,  by  Virginia,  606. 
Texas,  history  of,  428;  independence  of, 
recognized,  428;  annexation  to  United 
States  objectionable,  429 ;  opposition  of 
Mr.  Webster  to  admit  into  the  Union, 
559 ;  President  Tyler's  project  of  annex 
ing,  560;  how  its  annexation  affects 
representation,  561;  population  of,  in 
1848,  562;  territory  of,  562;  admitted 
into  the  Union,  562,  563,  609 ;  suitable 
time  for  annexing,  563 ;  the  vote  for  the 
admission  of,  583 ;  extract  from  resolu 
tion  for  admission  of,  609 ;  States  to 
be  formed  from,  609,  615 ;  votes  of  New 
England  for  admission  of,  610 ;  extracts 
from  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  on,  613,  631  ; 
separated  from  Mexico,  630 ;  vote  of  New 
York  for  annexing,  631 ;  admitted  as  a 
slave  State,  633;  fortunate  adjustment 
by  Congress  of  controversy  in  (1850), 
633. 

Timber,  English  duties  on,  89. 
Toast,  to  City  of  New  York,  319 ;  to  mem 
ory  of   Washington,  346;   at  Dinner  of 
New  England  Society  in  New  York,  503. 
Tonnage,  how  affected  by  tariff  of  1824, 

100  ;  no  State  can  lay  duty  on,  122. 
Trade  of  United  States,  with  foreign  mar 
kets,  93. 

Transportation  of  free  colored  people,  623. 
Treason,  defined,  267. 

Treasury  of  United   States,  order  concern 
ing  specie  payment,  440;  effect  of  the 
order,  441. 
Tudor,  William,   interest   in  Bunker  Hill 

Monument,  123,  137. 
Turkey,  its  oppression  of  Greece,  68. 
Tyler,   John,   at  Bunker  Hill,    139;   confi 
dence  in   Mr.   Webster,   481 ;    action  in 

45 


respect  to  insurrection  in  Rhode  Island, 
547  ;  project  of  annexing  Texas,  560. 


u. 

Unioff^Mr.  Webster's  sentiments  on  con 
solidation  of,  246;  apostrophe  to,  269; 
speech  of  March  7,  1850,  on  preservation 
of  the,  600  ;  impossibility  of  drawing  the 
line  in  case  of  dissolution  of,  622  ;  exhor 
tation  to  citizens  of  Buffalo  to  preserve 
the,  627 ;  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinion  of  ad 
mitting  Louisiana  into  the,  630. 

Union  of  the  States,  important,  140,  269, 
425 ;  not  a  league,  278 ;  how  regarded  by 
Washington,  345  ;  our  duty  to  the,  456. 

United  Colonies,  declared  free  and  inde 
pendent  States,  641. 

United  States,  peaceful  policy  of,  59 ;  duty 
of,  concerning  international  law,  60,  61, 
66 ;  interest  and  duty  of,  in  international 
law,  66  ;  position  of  government  towards 
South  America,  66 ;  exports  of,  com 
pared,  79 ;  navigation  of,  83 ;  trade  with 
Holland  and  Russia,  93  ;  duties  as  citizens 
of  the,  176  ;  how  affected  by  pacification 
of  Europe,  242 ;  attention  of,  directed  to 
internal  improvements,  242  ;  alliance  with 
France  declared  void,  278  ;  danger  to,  of 
dismemberment,  346  ;  table  showing  prog 
ress  in,  from  1793  to  1851,  645;  progress 
of,  in  arts  and  sciences,  648  ;  coast  survey 
of,  648  ;  military  resources  of,  649  ;  posi 
tion  of,  in  respect  to  the  Holy  Alliance, 
681 ;  conduct  of,  toward  revolution  in 
Hungary,  683. 
United  States  Bank  Bill,  speech  of  Webster 

on,  320. 

Upshur,  Mr.,  correspondence  in  regard  to 
Texas,  611 ;  his  object  for  admission  of 
Texas,  611 ;  Secretary  of  State,  560. 


V. 


Van  Buren,  Martin,  policy  of  his  adminis 
tration,  455;  appointed  Secretary  of 
State,  681 ;  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Lane,  681 ;  nominated  by  Free  Soil  Par 
ty,  581 ;  views  of,  relative  to  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  582  ;  influence 
in  annexing  Texas,  582;  candidate  for 
Presidency  in  1844,  583. 

Vansittart,  Mr.,  resolution  on  the  worth  of 
a  bank  note,  491. 

Verona,  Congress  at,  1822,  153;  concerning 
Grecian  independence,  70. 

Veto  Message,  consequences  of  the,  337; 


706 


INDEX. 


denies  authority  of  Supreme  Court  and 
Congress,  338. 

Veto  PoAver,  abuse  of,  493. 

Vienna,  society  of,  to  encourage  Grecian 
literature,  72. 

Virginia,  resolutions  concerning  commerce, 
115  ;  assembly  of  House  of  Burgesses  in, 
148  ;  Thomas  Jefferson,  Governor  of,  172 ; 
resolution  concerning  State  rights,  256  ; 
resolutions  of  1798  in  regard  to  State 
rights,  263;  ratification  of  the  Constitu 
tion  by,  289 ;  cession  of  her  Northwestern 
territory,  606 ;  early  feeling  in  regard  to 
slavery,  619  ;  cession  of  her  public  lands, 
623 ;  improbability  of  her  secession,  646. 

Visit  and  Search,  identical,  662. 

Visitation,  Lord  Holt's  judgment  on,  in 
case  of  Exeter  College,  7  ;  power  of,  over 
corporations,  7  ;  Stillingfleet's  argument 
on  power  of,  8. 

Visitor,  applied  to  founder  of  incorporated 
charity,  7. 

Volney's  "  Euins  of  Empires/'  quoted,  520. 

Voltaire,  followers  of,  admitted  to  Girard 
College,  513. 

Volunteers,  difficulty  in  recruiting,  555. 


w. 

Walker,  Mr.,  took  lead  in  annexing  Texas, 
609. 

War,  only  declared  by  Congress,  287 ;  Mr. 
Webster's  defence  of  his  course  in,  459  ; 
of  1812,  effect  on  prices,  81. 

Warehouse  System,  of  England,  and  United 
States,  90. 

Warren,  Gen.  Joseph,  measures  toward 
erecting  a  monument  to,  123  ;  eulogized, 
127. 

Washington,  Gen.  George,  131,  168,  251; 
remark  on  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  142 ; 
apostrophe  to,  149,  663 ;  decease  of,  156 ; 
administration  supported  by  New  Eng 
land,  250 ;  his  inauguration  at  New  York, 
312;  centennial  anniversary  at  Washing 
ton,  339 ;  representative  government  es 
tablished  under,  341 ;  remark  of  Fisher 
Ames  on,  342 ;  basis  of  his  character,  342 ; 
policy  as  to  foreign  relations,  343  ;  domes 
tic  policy  of,  344 ;  exhortation  against 
party  spirit,  345 ;  his  regard  for  the  Union, 
345 ;  toast  of  Webster  to  memory  of,  346 ; 
his  practice  of  addressing  Congress  in  per 
son,  374;  civil  character  of,  577  ;  founda 
tion  of  Capitol  laid  by,  644,  652 ;  monu 
ment  to,  652. 

Washington  City,  its  favorable  situation, 
651  ;  public  dinner  at,  339. 


Washington,  Treaty  of,  letter  of  Mr.  Web 
ster  on  the  ratification  of  the,  666. 

Webster,  Daniel,  remarks  on  African  Slave 
Trade,  49 ;  resolution  to  appoint  an  agent 
to  Greece^57 ;  opinion  of  paper  curren 
cy,  82  ;  explains  his  change  of  opinion  on 
protection,  110  ;  President  of  Bunker  Hill 
Monument  Association,  125;  address  on 
completion  of  Bunker  Hill  Monument, 
136;  author  of  supposed  speech  against 
the  Declaration,  167  ;  eloquence  denned 
by,  167  ;  letter  concerning  the  authorship 
of  speech  asoribed  to  John  Adams,  177  ; 
his  portrayal  of  murder,  195;  reply  to 
Hayne,  227 ;  views  on  disposition  of  pub 
lic  lands,  237,  238;  course  pursued  in 
Congress  on  internal  improvements,  243; 
course  concerning  tariff,  247  ;  sentiments 
on  consolidation  of  the  Union,  248;  apos 
trophe  to  the  Union,  269  ;  reply  to  Cal- 
houn  in  regard  to  State  sovereignty,  273  ; 
speech  at  public  dinner  in  New  York,  307 ; 
defence  of  the  Constitution,. 317  ;  circum 
stances  of  his  birth,  319 ;  respect  of,  for 
judicature  of  New  York, 319  ;  toast  to  City 
of  New  York,  319  ;  presides  at  centennial 
anniversary  of  Washington,  339  ;  toast  to 
Washington,  346 ;  sentiments  on  re-elec 
tion  of  Jackson,  357  ;  prediction  in  regard 
to  irredeemable  paper  currency,  365 ; 
remark  of  J.  Q.  Adams  on,  406  ;  reception 
in  New  York,  1837,  422 ;  opinions  on  slav 
ery,  429 ;  views  on  hard  money,  440 ; 
devoted  to  service  of  United  States,  457 ; 
reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  458 ;  denies  Mr. 
Calhoun's  charges,  458-60;  defence  of 
his  course  in  war,  459 ;  opposes  Mr. 
Dallas's  bill  for  a  bank,  460;  course  in 
war  of  1812,  461 ;  early  support  to  the 
navy,  461  ;  answers  Mr.  Calhoun's  charges 
in  regard  to  slavery,  462 ;  answer  to  Cal 
houn's  charges  on  tariff,  463  ;  political 
differences  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  468 ;  a  hard- 
money  man,  468 ;  the  log  cabin  of  his  fa 
ther,  477  ;  visit  to  Richmond,  478  ;  speech 
at  his  reception  in  Boston,  481 ;  Rep 
resentative  in  Congress,  481 ;  reception 
at  Boston,  Sept.  30,  1842,  481 ;  Secretary 
of  State  under  President  Harrison,  482  ; 
visit  and  speech  in  England,  483 ;  oppo 
sition  to  his  remaining  in  the  President's 
Cabinet  (1841),  486  ;  delicacy  of  his  po 
sition  in  1842,  486 ;  study  of  the  curren 
cy  question,  492 ;  speech  at  dinner  of 
New  England  Society  of  New  York,  496  ; 
toast  at  dinner  of  New  England  Society, 
at  New  York,  503  ;  correspondence  arising 
under  Girard  Will  case,  505;  letter  to 
Madam  Story  on  death  of  her  son,  532; 


INDEX. 


707 


opposed   admission   of   Texas    into    the 
Union,  559  ;  against  extension  of  slavery 
and  slave  representation,  574  ;  invited  by 
citizens  of  Marshfield  to  address  them 
575 ;  letter  of,  to  citizens  of  Marshfield 
575  ;  addresses  the  citizens  of  Marshfield 
575  ;  opinion  of  Gen.  Taylor  for  President 
576 ;  opinion  of  Gen.  Cass  for  President, 
584;  course  concerning  Texas,  612-614; 
Secretary  of  State,  613 ;   in  Senate,  613 ; 
ideas  of  peaceable  secession,  621 ;  letter 
to  Kds.  of  National  Intelligencer,  enclos 
ing  letter  of  late  Dr.  Channiug,  624 ;  let 
ter  of  W.  E.  Channing  to,  in  respect  to 
slavery,  624;  reception  at  Buffalo,  May 
22,  1851,  626  ;  course  concerning  slavery, 
630 ;  extract  from  speech  on   annexing 
Texas,  631 ;  course  during  the  crises  of 
1850,  637 ;  account  of  laying  the  corner 
stone  of  the  Capitol,  652;  letter  to  Lord 
Ashburton  on  impressment   of   seamen, 
655 ;  letter  to  Gen.  Cass  in  respect  to  his 
construction  of  the  treaty  of  Washington, 
666,  667,  673  ;  letter  to  Mr.  Ticknor  in  re 
spect  to  the  Hiilsemann  letter,  678 ;  letter 
to  J.  G.  Hiilsemann  in   respect  to  Mr. 
Mann's  mission,  679 ;  as  a  master  of  Eng 
lish  style,  xi ;  influence  over  and  respect 
for  the  landed  democracy,  xiv  ;  manage 
ment  of  the  Goodridge  robbery  case,  xv ; 
story  told  of  him  by  Mr.  Peter  Harvey, 
xv  ;  early  style  of  rhetoric,  xviii ;  letter 
to  his  friend  Binghanij  xix ;  acquaintance 
with  Jeremiah  Mason,  xix  ;  incident  con 
nected  with  the  Dartmouth  College  argu 
ment,  xxi ;  effect  of  his  Plymouth  oration 
of  1820,  xxii ;  note  to  Mr.  Geo.  Ticknor 
on  his  Bunker  Hill  oration,  1825,  xxiii; 
esteem   for   Henry   J.    Raymond,  xxiv; 
the  image  of  the  British  drum-beat,  xxix  ; 
power  of  compact  statement,  xxxi ;  pro 
test    against    Mr.    Benton's    Expunging 
Resolution,  xxxi;  arguments  against  nul 
lification    and    secession    unanswerable, 
xxxiii ;  moderation  of  expression,  xxxv  ; 
abstinence  from  personalities,  xxxvi ;  li 
belled  by  his  political  enemies,  xxxvi ; 
use  of  the  word  "respectable,"  xl ;  and 
Calhoun  in  debate,  xliii;  as  a  writer  of 
State  papers,  xliv ;  as   a   stump  orator, 
xlv  ;  a  friend  of  the  laboring  man,  xlvi ; 
compared    with     certain    poets,    xlviii ; 
death-bed  declaration  of,  li ;  fame  of  his 
speeches,  li.;   compared  with  other  ora 


tors,  Ivi ;  idealization  of  the  Constitution, 
lix ;  anecdote  of  his  differing  from  Lord 
Camden,  Ixii. 

Webster,  Fletcher,  letter  to  Gen.  Cass,  667. 
Weir,  Robert  N.,  his  painting  of  the   Em 
barkation  of  the  Pilgrims,  52. 
Wesley,  John,  anecdote  of,  511. 
West  India  colonies,  34. 
Wheelock,  Rev.  E.,  founder  of  Dartmouth 

College,  1. 

Whig,  origin  of  the  term,  476. 
Whigs,  of  New  York,  443  ;  Convention  of, 
in  Boston,  486 ;  of  Mass,  declare  separa 
tion  from  the  President,  487  ;  the  revolu 
tion  of  1840,  success  of  the,  488;  Gen. 
Taylor  nominated  by,  575. 
White,  Capt.  Joseph,  account  of  the  mur 
der  of,   189;   argument  of  Webster  on 
194. 

White,  Mr.,  416. 

Wickliffe,  John,  burnt  for  heresy,  599. 
Wilkins,  Mr.,  bill  of,  concerning  tariff,  273. 
Williams,  Mr.,  489. 

Wilmot  Proviso,  to  be  applied  to  Texas 
and  other  acquisitions,  611,  612;  Mr. 
Polk's  opinion  of  the,  616  ;  not  to  be  used 
as  a  reproach  to  Southern  States,  616 ; 
espoused  by  the  Free-Soil  men,  631 ; 
proposition  to  apply  to  New  Mexico  and 
California,  632. 

Windham,  Mr.,  remark  of,  622. 
Winslow,  Edward,  Jr.,  first  address  on  an 
niversary   of    landing    of    Pilgrims    de 
livered  by,  25. 
Winthrop,  R.  C.,  voted  for  tariff  of  1842, 

489. 

Witherspoon,  Mr.,  motion  in  Congress  con 
cerning  commerce,  115. 
AVoman,  how  she  performs  her  part  in  free 

government,  479. 
Wool,  proposition  of  English  Parliament  to 

abolish  tax  on,  90. 

Woollen   Manufactures,   how   affected    by 
tariff    of    1824,    101 ;    of   England    and 
United  States,  102. 
Wright,  Silas,  voted  for  tariff  of  1842, 489. 


Y. 


York,  Duke  of,  anecdote  in  respect  to  his 

accession  to  the  crown,  586. 
ITpsilanti,  Alexander,  leads  insurrection  in 

Moldavia,  72. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


RECTD  LD 

APR  1 6 1966 


General  Library 

University  of  Californi 

Berkeley 


LD  21A-60m-4.'64 
(E4555slO)476B 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


